MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417535405 · doi:10.1093/cid/ciaf460

Clinical Practice Guideline by Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA): 2025 Guideline on Management and Treatment of Complicated Urinary Tract Infections: Selection of Antibiotic Therapy for Complicated UTI

2025· article· en· W4417535405 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Infectious Diseases · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Tract Infections Management
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalUniversity of ManitobaManitoba Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGuidelineClinical PracticeAntibiotic therapyUrinary systemAntibioticsSelection (genetic algorithm)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: These recommendations address the empiric choice of antibiotics in suspected complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI). Issues to balance include the need for appropriate initial empiric antimicrobial therapy, the patient's severity of illness, and antimicrobial stewardship concerns. METHODS: The panel's recommendations are based upon evidence derived from systematic literature reviews that focused on comparative benefits and harms of classes of antibiotics approved for cUTI, starting with publications from 2008 onwards, and our review of predictors of resistance in uropathogens included references identified 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 initially selecting among preferred empiric antibiotic choices rather than alternative options, stratified for the patient's severity of illness and antimicrobial stewardship considerations. When choosing among these antibiotics for a specific patient, the guideline panel suggests a 4-step process to account for changing resistance patterns and individualized patient needs. The steps are: (1) assess the severity of illness (for initial prioritization of antibiotics), (2) consider patient-specific risk factors for resistant uropathogens (for optimization of coverage), (3) evaluate other patient-specific considerations (to reduce the risk of adverse events), and (4) for patients with sepsis, consult a relevant local antibiogram if available (to further improve the likelihood of giving appropriate empiric therapy). Lastly, the guideline panel suggests selecting definitive effective therapy with a targeted spectrum based on the result of the urine culture. CONCLUSIONS: Many of the classes of antibiotics approved to treat cUTI demonstrate similar efficacy as other classes of antibiotics in randomized controlled trials. Bacterial resistance prevalence is always changing, and new antibiotics will be developed. In this context, the guidelines panel provides recommendations for choosing empiric antibiotic therapy for cUTI that will help clinicians decide among available antibiotic options at the point of care.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0120.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.008

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.380 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Infectious DiseasesSame topicUrinary Tract Infections ManagementFrench-language works237,207