1,721,238 research outputs found
Antibiotics for community acquired pneumonia in adult outpatients
No full textBackground Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), the sixth most common cause of death worldwide, is a common condition representing a significant disease burden for the community, particularly in the elderly. Antibiotics are helpful in treating CAP and are the standard treatment. CAP contributes significantly to antibiotic use, which is associated with the development of bacterial resistance and side-effects. Several studies have been published concerning treatment for CAP. Available data arises mainly hospitalized patients studies. This is an update of our 2004 Cochrane Review. Objectives To summarize current evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) concerning the efficacy of different antibiotic treatments for CAP in participants older than 12. Search strategy We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2009, issue 1) which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialized Register; MEDLINE (January 1966 to February week 2, 2009), and EMBASE (January 1974 to February 2009). Selection criteria RCTs in which one or more antibiotics were tested for the treatment of CAP in ambulatory adolescents or adults. Studies testing one or more antibiotics and reporting the diagnostic criteria as well as the clinical outcomes achieved, were considered for inclusion. Data collection and analysis Two review authors (LMB, TJMV) independently assessed study reports in the first publication. In this update, LMB performed study selection, which was checked by TJMV and MMK. Study authors were contacted to resolve any ambiguities in the study reports. Data were compiled and analyzed. Differences between review authors were resolved by discussion and consensus. Main results Six RCTs assessing five antibiotic pairs (1857 participants aged 12 years and older diagnosed with CAP) were included. The study quality was generally good, with some differences in the extent of the reporting. A variety of clinical, radiological and bacteriological diagnostic criteria and outcomes were reported. Overall, there was no significant difference in the efficacy of the various antibiotics. Authors' conclusions Currently available evidence from RCTs is insufficient to make evidence-based recommendations for the choice of antibiotic to be used for the treatment of CAP in ambulatory patients. Pooling of study data was limited by the very low number of studies assessing the same antibiotic pairs. Individual study results do not reveal significant differences in efficacy between various antibiotics and antibiotic groups. Multi-drug comparisons using similar administration schedules are needed to provide the evidence necessary for practice recommendations
Comparison between treatment effects in a randomised controlled trial and an observational study using propensity scores in primary care
No full textBackground Although randomized controlled trials(RCT) are considered “gold standard” evidence, they are not always feasible or appropriate and may represent a select population. Observational studies provide a useful alternative to enhance applicability, but results can be biased due to confounding. Aim To explore the utility of propensity scores for causal inference in an observational studyDesign and Setting Comparison of the effect of amoxicillin on key outcomes in an international trial and observational study of lower respiratory tract infections.Method Propensity scores were calculated and applied as probability weights in the analyses. The adjusted results were compared to the effects reported in the RCT. Results Groups were well balanced in the RCT but significantly imbalanced in the observational study, with evidence of confounding by indication; patients receiving antibiotics tended to be older and more unwell at baseline consultation. In the trial duration of symptoms (hazard ratio 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 - 1.18) and symptoms severity (-0.07) 95% CI -0.15, 0.007) did not differ between groups. Weighting by propensity score in the observational study resulted in very similar estimates of effect: hazard ratios for duration of symptoms (1.06 95% CI 0.80-1.40) and difference for symptom severity -0.07 (95% CI -0.34- 0.20). Conclusion The observational study, after conditioning on propensity score, echoed the trial results. Provided that detailed information is available on potential sources of confounding, effects of interventions can probably be assessed reasonably well in observational data sets, allowing them to be more directly compared with the results of RCTs. </p
Antibiotic consumption and time to recovery from uncomplicated urinary tract infection: secondary analysis of observational data from a point-of-care test trial
Full text linkBackground Randomised trials provide high-quality evidence on the effects of prescribing antibiotics for urinary tract infection (UTI) but may not reflect the effects in those who consume antibiotics. Moreover, they mostly compare different antibiotic types or regimens but rarely include a ‘no antibiotic’ group.
Aim To estimate the effect of antibiotic consumption, rather than prescription, on time to recovery in females with uncomplicated UTI.
Design and setting Secondary analysis of 14-day observational data from a point-of-care test trial for UTI in primary care in England, the Netherlands, Spain, and Wales, which ran from 2012 to 2014. Clinicians treated patients using their own judgement, providing immediate, delayed, or no antibiotic.
Method UTI-symptomatic females who either consumed or did not consume antibiotics during a 14-day follow-up were included. Antibiotic consumption was standardised across participants and grouped into either ≤3 or >3 standardised antibiotic days. To account for confounders, a robust propensity score matching analysis was conducted. Adjusted Kaplan–Meier and Cox proportional hazard models were employed to estimate time to recovery and hazard ratios, respectively.
Results A total of n = 333 females who consumed antibiotics and n = 80 females who did not consume antibiotics were identified and included in the study. The adjusted median time to recovery was 2 days longer among patients who did not consume antibiotics (9 days, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 7 to 12) compared with those who did (7 days, 95% CI = 7 to 8). No difference was found between those who consumed ≤3 (7 days, 95% CI = 7 to 8) compared with >3 standardised antibiotic days (7 days, 95% CI = 6 to 9).
Conclusion Consuming antibiotics was associated with a reduction in self-reported time to recovery, but more antibiotics exposure was not associated with faster recovery in this study
Amoxicillin for acute lower respiratory tract infection in primary care: subgroup analysis of potential high-risk groups
No full textBackground: Antibiotics are of limited overall clinical benefit for uncomplicated lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) but there is uncertainty about their effectiveness for patients with features associated with higher levels of antibiotic prescribing.Aim: To estimate the benefits and harms of antibiotics for acute LRTI among those producing coloured sputum, smokers, those with fever or prior comorbidities, and longer duration of prior illness.Design and setting: Secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial of antibiotic placebo for acute LRTI in primary care.Method: Two thousand and sixty-one adults with acute LRTI, where pneumonia was not suspected clinically, were given amoxicillin or matching placebo. The duration of symptoms, rated moderately bad or worse (primary outcome), symptom severity on days 2–4 (0–6 scale), and the development of new or worsening symptoms were analysed in pre-specified subgroups of interest. Evidence of differential treatment effectiveness was assessed in prespecified subgroups by interaction terms.Results: No subgroups were identified that were significantly more likely to benefit from antibiotics in terms of symptom duration or the development of new or worsening symptoms. Those with a history of significant comorbidities experienced a significantly greater reduction in symptom severity between days 2 and 4 (interaction term ?0.28, P = 0.003; estimated effect of antibiotics among those with a past history ?0.28 [95% confidence interval = ?0.44 to ?0.11], P = 0.001), equivalent to three people in 10 rating symptoms as a slight rather than a moderately bad problem. For subgroups not specified in advance antibiotics provided a modest reduction in symptom severity for non-smokers and for those with short prior illness duration (<7 days), and a modest reduction in symptom duration for those with short prior illness duration.Conclusion: There is no clear evidence of clinically meaningful benefit from antibiotics in the studied high-risk groups of patients presenting in general practice with uncomplicated LRTIs where prescribing is highest. Any possible benefit must be balanced against the side-effects and longer-term effects on antibiotic resistance
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Cost effectiveness of amoxicillin for lower respiratory tract infections in primary care: an economic evaluation accounting for the cost of antimicrobial resistance
No full textBackground: Lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) are a major disease burden and are often treated with antibiotics. Typically, studies evaluating the use of antibiotics focus on immediate costs of care, and do not account for the wider implications of antimicrobial resistance.Aim: This study sought to establish whether antibiotics (principally amoxicillin) are cost effective in patients with LRTIs, and to explore the implications of taking into account costs associated with resistance.Design and setting: Multinational randomised double-blinded trial in 2060 patients with acute cough/LRTIs recruited in 12 European countries.Method: A cost-utility analysis from a health system perspective with a time horizon of 28 days was conducted. The primary outcome measure was the quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Hierarchical modelling was used to estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).Results: Amoxicillin was associated with an ICER of €8216 (£6540) per QALY gained when the cost of resistance was excluded. If the cost of resistance is greater than €11 (£9) per patient, then amoxicillin treatment is no longer cost effective. Including possible estimates of the cost of resistance resulted in ICERs ranging from €14 730 (£11 949) per QALY gained — when only multidrug resistance costs and health care costs are included — to €727 135 (£589 856) per QALY gained when broader societal costs are also included.Conclusion: Economic evaluation of antibiotic prescribing strategies that do not include the cost of resistance may provide misleading results that could be of questionable use to policymakers. However, further work is required to estimate robust costs of resistance
Variations on the Author
Full text link“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Full text linkWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Full text linkWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
- …
