Clinical Practice Guideline by Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA): 2025 Guideline on Management and Treatment of Complicated Urinary Tract Infections: Timing of Intravenous to Oral Antibiotics Transition for Complicated UTI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: These recommendations provide guidance on the optimal timing for transitioning from intravenous to oral antibiotics in patients with complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI), especially in presence of associated Gram-negative bacteremia. METHODS: The panel's recommendations are based upon evidence derived from systematic literature reviews which focused on comparative benefits and harms of transitioning to oral therapy versus continuing parenteral therapy of the total duration of treatment, including publications since 2000. These recommendations adhere to a standardized methodology for rating the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendation according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. RESULTS: The guidelines panel suggests transitioning to oral antibiotics in patients with cUTI who are clinically improving, able to take medication, and for whom an effective oral option is available, rather than continuing parenteral therapy for the remaining treatment duration, regardless of the presence of associated Gram-negative bacteremia. An effective oral option needs to be active against the causative pathogen and achieve therapeutic levels in the urine and relevant tissue. CONCLUSIONS: Parenteral and oral antibiotics used to complete treatment courses for cUTI provide similar efficacy and adverse events, especially in the context of shorter duration of therapy. This recommendation places a high value on reducing avoidable intravenous catheter-related adverse events, costs, and resources, as well as taking into account practical aspects of antibiotic administration.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".