Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10147024›Full record

ReviewPharmacoEconomics1992

Imipenem/cilastatin: a pharmacoeconomic appraisal of its use in intra-abdominal infections.

P Benfield, P Chrisp

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in PharmacoEconomics, 1992. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

P BenfieldAdis International Limited, Auckland, New Zealand.
P Chrisp

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Imipenem/cilastatin possesses a very broad spectrum of antibacterial activity that encompasses the range of Gram-negative and Gram-positive aerobes and anaerobes usually associated with intra-abdominal and other polymicrobial infections. Its therapeutic efficacy is comparable to that of aminoglycoside/antianaerobe combination regimens, and the most commonly reported adverse effects are similar to those of other beta-lactam antibacterials and are generally of a non-serious nature. The acquisition cost of imipenem/cilastatin is generally greater than that of aminoglycoside/antianaerobe combination regimens, but treatment with the latter incurs the additional costs of multiple intravenous administration, aminoglycoside pharmacokinetic and other monitoring, and possible nephrotoxicity and ototoxicity. The available pharmacoeconomic studies show a trend towards lower total treatment costs with imipenem/cilastatin compared with gentamicin plus clindamycin. Results from other sources suggest that imipenem/cilastatin may achieve further cost savings through reduced duration of hospitalisation. Although further study is required to confirm these trends, it appears that the total treatment cost of imipenem/cilastatin does not exceed that of usual combination therapy and the risk of aminoglycoside-induced toxicity is avoided.

Indexed as

AbdomenBacterial InfectionsCilastatinDrug Therapy, CombinationDrug UtilizationEuropeForecastingFormularies as TopicHealth Care CostsHumansImipenemLength of StayRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeUnited StatesCilastatinImipenem

Identifiers

PMID10147024
OpenAlexW1965053614

What OpenQuestion holds

Texttitle and abstract
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.