MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413401022 · doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2025.103437

Antibiotic treatment of pediatric infections in primary healthcare setting: evaluation and comparison of 80 national treatment guidelines with the WHO AWaRe book recommendations

2025· article· en· W4413401022 on OpenAlexaff
Daniele Donà, Giulia Brigadoi, Anna Cantarutti, Giovanni Autore, Marco Masetti, Shrey Mathur, Mike Sharland, Susanna Esposito

Bibliographic record

VenueEClinicalMedicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicAntibiotic Use and Resistance
Canadian institutionsChildren's & Women's Health Centre of British Columbia
FundersSt. George's, University of LondonUniversity of OxfordMinistero dell'Università e della RicercaEuropean CommissionUniversity of LondonWellcome Trust
KeywordsMedicineAntibioticsFamily medicineHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Antibiotic recommendations for pediatric infections in national standard treatment guidelines (STGs) vary widely, particularly for Access and Watch antibiotics. The WHO AWaRe book recommends Access antibiotics as first-line treatment for over 80% of common infections managed in primary healthcare. This study aims to evaluate the agreement between first and second-line antibiotics in national STGs with AWaRe book recommendations and the inclusion of these antibiotics in Essential Medicine Lists (EMLs). Methods: National STGs of 80 countries were systematically collected from databases and grey literature (up to May 2025). Antibiotic recommendations for the ten most common primary healthcare infections in children were compared with the WHO AWaRe book (2022), the WHO Essential Medicines List for children (EMLc) and national Essential Medicines Lists (nEMLs) where available. Findings: A median of eight STGs per country were collected, with higher numbers in LMICs due to guidelines for cholera and enteric fever. A total of 1124 first-line and 841 second-line antibiotic recommendations were identified. Over 70% of first-line recommended treatments were Access antibiotics, while Watch antibiotics accounted for more than 50% of second-line recommended treatments. First-line recommendations showed strong agreement with WHO guidance, whereas second-line treatments exhibited lower agreement and greater variability across regions. More than 80% of first-line antibiotics were included in the EMLc and nEMLs, although some high-income countries lacked nEMLs. Interpretation: First-line antibiotic recommendations in national pediatric STGs largely align with the WHO AWaRe book guidance focusing on Access antibiotic use. In contrast, second-line treatments vary considerably, commonly recommending Watch antibiotics. Strengthening the evidence base of national STGs and aligning second-line recommendations with the WHO AWaRe book could help meet the 79th UNGA High-Level Meeting on AMR target, which aims for 70% of all human antibiotic use to come from the Access group. Funding: PRIN 2022 "A Cluster randomized clinical trial to change Antibiotic Prescribing behavior in Outpatient pediatric primary care setting in Italy (CAPO project)", funded in the framework of the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP), Mission 4, Component 2, Investment 1.1, funded by the European Union-Next Generation EU, Project 2022A7LA2W, CUP C53D23006050006.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.250

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.349 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEClinicalMedicineSame topicAntibiotic Use and ResistanceFrench-language works237,207