ReviewInfection
Monobactams and carbapenems for treatment of intraabdominal infections.
Review in Infection. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of ertapenem versus piperacillin-tazobactam for the treatment of intra-abdominal infections requiring surgical intervention.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2006Trial
- Outcomes of Beta-Lactam Allergic and Non-Beta-Lactam Allergic Patients with Intra-Abdominal Infection: A Case-Control Study.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Review
- Use of newer quinolones for the treatment of intraabdominal infections: focus on clinafloxacin.InfectionReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
During the last decade improved clinical and microbiological methods have resulted in the realization that most intraabdominal infections involve both aerobic and anaerobic bacteria. Papers on the use of different antimicrobial agents directed against the polymicrobial flora of the infected site have been published. In this paper the use of monobactams and carbapenems for treatment of intraabdominal infections is reviewed. The review is based on data published since 1990. Three hundred forty-four patients participated in three trials where aztreonam combined with clindamycin was compared with other antimicrobial agents for treatment of intraabdominal infections. Eighty-six percent of the patients receiving aztreonam plus clindamycin were cured/improved, while 83% of the patients receiving the comparative drugs had favorable outcomes. Eleven trials compared imipenem/cilastatin versus other antimicrobial combinations for therapy of intraabdominal infections. One thousand three hundred seventy-five patients were evaluated in the trials. Eighty percent of patients treated with imipenem/cilastatin had favorable outcomes, while 81% of the patients receiving the comparative drugs were cured/improved. Nine studies including 1,205 patients for evaluation of meropenem versus other antimicrobial agents in the treatment of intraabdominal infections have been published. Cure/improvement was seen in 96% of the patients treated with meropenem and in 91% receiving the comparative drugs. One trial has been published comparing biapenem with imipenem/cilastatin for treatment of intraabdominal infections. Eighty-three patients participated, 65% of the patients in the biapenem group were cured/improved and 68% in the imipenem/cilastatin group.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.