MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Antibiotic therapy versus no antibiotic therapy for children aged 2 to 59 months with WHO-defined non-severe pneumonia and wheeze

2021· article· en· W6959181243 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueeCommons - AKU (Aga Khan University) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Taxonomy and Phylogenetics
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPneumoniaAntibiotic therapyAntibioticsClinical trialPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Worldwide, pneumonia is the leading cause of death amongst children under five years of age, and accounts for approximately two million deaths annually. Pneumonia can be classified according to the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines. Classification includes assessment of certain clinical signs and symptoms, and the severity of the disease. Treatment is then tailored according to the classification. For non-severe pneumonia, the WHO recommends treatment with oral antibiotics. We used the 2014 WHO definition of non-severe pneumonia for this review: an acute episode of cough, or difficulty in breathing, combined with fast breathing and chest indrawing. The WHO recommends treating non-severe pneumonia with oral antibiotics. Pneumonia is more commonly caused by viruses that do not require antibiotic treatment, but pneumonia caused by bacteria needs management with antibiotics to avoid complications. There is no clear way to quickly distinguish between viral and bacterial pneumonia. It is considered safe to give antibiotics, however, this may lead to the development of antibiotic resistance, and thus, limit their use in future infections. Therefore, it is essential to explore the efficacy of antibiotics for children with WHO-defined non-severe pneumonia and wheeze.Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy of antibiotic therapy versus no antibiotic therapy for children aged 2 to 59 months with WHO-defined non-severe pneumonia and wheeze.Search methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases, and two trial registers (December 2020).Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of antibiotic therapy versus no antibiotic therapy for children, aged 2 to 59 months, with non-severe pneumonia and wheeze. We defined non-severe pneumonia as 'a cough or difficulty in breathing, with rapid breathing (a respiratory rate of 50 breaths per minute or more for children aged 2 to 12 months, or a respiratory rate of 40 breaths per minute or more for children aged 12 to 59 months), chest indrawing and wheeze'. We excluded trials involving children with severe or very severe pneumonia, and non-RCTs.Data collection and analysis: Our primary outcomes were clinical cure and treatment failure; secondary outcomes were relapse, mortality, and treatment harms. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Two review authors independently assessed the search results, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence. We contacted the authors of two included trials and the author of the trial awaiting classification to obtain missing numerical outcome data.Main results: We included three trials involving 3256 children aged between 2 to 59 months, who exhibited features of non-severe pneumonia with wheeze. The included trials were multi-centre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trials carried out in Malawi, Pakistan, and India. The children were treated with a three-day course of amoxicillin or placebo, and were followed up for a total of two weeks. We assessed the included trials at overall low risk of bias for random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, attrition bias, and selective reporting. Only one trial was assessed to be at high risk for blinding of outcome assessors. One trial is awaiting classification Antibiotic therapy may result in a reduction of treatment failure by 20% (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 0.94; three trials; 3222 participants; low-certainty evidence). Antibiotic therapy probably results in little or no difference to clinical cure (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.08; one trial; 456 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and in little or no difference to relapse (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.34; three trials; 2795 participants; low-certainty evidence), and treatment harms (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.09; three trials, 3253 participants; low-certainty evidence). Two trials (2112 participants ) reported on mortality; no deaths occurred in either group. One trial reported cases of hospitalisation, diarrhoea (with and without dehydration), rash (without itch), tremors, mild nausea and vomiting.Authors' conclusions: We do not currently have enough evidence to support or challenge the continued use of antibiotics for the treatment of non-severe pneumonia. There is a clear need for RCTs to address this question in children aged 2 to 59 months with 2014 WHO-defined non-severe pneumonia and wheeze.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeCommons - AKU (Aga Khan University)Same topicPlant Taxonomy and PhylogeneticsFrench-language works237,207