Clinical Practice Guidelines by Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA): 2025 Guidelines on Management and Treatment of Complicated Urinary Tract Infections—Duration of Antibiotics for Complicated UTI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background These recommendations provide guidance on the optimal duration of 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 shorter (5–7 days) vs prolonged (10–14 days) duration of antibiotics, 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 that patients with cUTI who are improving on effective therapy can be treated with shorter duration of antimicrobials (either 5–7 days of a fluoroquinolone or 7 days of a non-fluoroquinolone) rather than longer courses of antibiotics, regardless of the presence of associated Gram-negative bacteremia. An effective antimicrobial agent achieves therapeutic levels in the urine and relevant tissue and is active against the causative pathogen. However, men with febrile UTI in whom acute bacterial prostatitis is suspected may benefit from a longer treatment duration (10–14 days), and a short courses of oral beta lactams may require higher doses for efficacy. Conclusions Shorter durations of antibiotics for cUTI provide similar efficacy as longer courses, except in men with febrile UTI in whom acute bacterial prostatitis is suspected. This recommendation places a high value on antibiotic stewardship considerations as well as reducing the burden of antimicrobial administration from a healthcare perspective and reducing the burden of taking antibiotics from a patient perspective.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".