Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10776838›Full record

ReviewDrugs2000

Meropenem: a review of its use in patients in intensive care.

M Hurst, H M Lamb

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Drugs, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 89 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Carbapenems versus other beta-lactams in treating severe infections in intensive care: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2008
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
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.

M HurstAdis International Limited, Mairangi Bay, Auckland, New Zealand. demail@adis.co.nz
H M Lamb

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledMeropenem is a carbapenem antibacterial agent that has antimicrobial activity against gram-negative, gram-positive and anaerobic micro-organisms. In vitro studies involving isolates from patients in intensive care units (ICUs) indicate that meropenem is more active against most gram-negative pathogens than other comparators (including imipenem), although, compared with imipenem, meropenem is less active against most gram-positive organisms. Resistance to meropenem is uncommon in most bacteria. Treatment with meropenem as initial empirical monotherapy was effective in a range of serious infections in adult and paediatric ICU patients. Meropenem monotherapy was as effective as imipenem/cilastatin in 4 comparative trials in terms of satisfactory clinical and bacteriological responses. Meropenem monotherapy was significantly more effective than ceftazidime-based combination treatments in 2 trials in patients with nosocomial lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) in terms of both clinical and bacteriological responses. Meropenem was also more active than ceftazidime-based treatments against both gram-positive and gram-negative organisms. However, 2 studies in patients with a range of serious infections found no significant differences between meropenem and cephalosporin-based treatments in terms of clinical or bacteriological response. Meropenem was also as effective as cephalosporin-based treatments in comparative trials in children with serious infections. Meropenem is well tolerated as either a bolus or an infusion, and clinical trials have shown similar incidences of adverse events to those observed with cephalosporin-based treatments. It is well tolerated by the CNS, with seizures reported infrequently, and can therefore be used at high doses and in patients with meningitis. The incidence of drug-related nausea and vomiting is low and, in contrast to imipenem/cilastatin, does not increase with dose or speed of administration.

conclusionsMeropenem is a well tolerated broad spectrum antibacterial agent that, when used as initial empirical monotherapy, is as effective as imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of a range of serious infections (including nosocomial) in adults and children in ICUs. Compared with cephalosporin-based combination treatments, meropenem monotherapy may be more effective in the treatment of nosocomial LRTIs and can be used as monotherapy. Meropenem has an important role in the empirical treatment of serious infections in adults and children in ICUs.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAgingAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsArea Under CurveBacterial InfectionsChildCross InfectionHumansInfant, NewbornIntensive Care UnitsMeropenemMetabolic Clearance RateMicrobial Sensitivity TestsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAnti-Bacterial AgentsMeropenemThienamycins

Identifiers

PMID10776838
OpenAlexW1966483115

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.