Rate of bacterial positivity following antibiotic initiation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bacterial culture remains a critical tool for pathogen identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing. However, its diagnostic accuracy is often compromised by prior antibiotic administration, which can reduce the recovery of viable organisms and lead to false-negative results. Given the variability and limitations in the existing studies, a systematic review is needed to better understand the influence of antibiotics on culture yield. METHODS: We conducted an electronic search in PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science from their inception through March 2025. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the methodological quality of the included articles. Random effects models were used to estimate the proportions and 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs). The protocol for this review was registered in PROSPERO: CRD42025648397. RESULTS: = 99.8%, p-value < 0.001) was observed across the included studies. CONCLUSION: Bacterial growth decreased by more than half following antibiotic administration, indicating a strong suppressive effect. This highlights the importance of considering the timing of sample collection in relation to antibiotic initiation. Where necessary, particularly in cases of uncertain clinical progress, sampling after antibiotic administration can be useful for monitoring prognosis and guiding further treatment decisions. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42025648397.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Meta-analysis | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Meta-analysis | high |
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 | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".