ReviewDrugs2000
Place of parenteral cephalosporins in the ambulatory setting: clinical evidence.
Review in Drugs, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of hyperlipidaemia on the orbital bone cefotaxime levels in rats.European journal of drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
During the last decade, 6 parenteral third generation cephalosporins have been introduced into clinical practice. The three most frequently used agents are cefotaxime, ceftazidime and ceftriaxone. Although primarily used in hospitals, these agents are increasingly employed in the ambulatory setting. In particular, ceftriaxone, because of its favourable pharmacokinetic profile allowing once-daily administration by a bolus injection, has demonstrated both tolerability and efficacy in the ambulatory setting during extensive worldwide use. Sophisticated parenteral infusion systems enable cephalosporins that require more frequent administration to be delivered in this setting. In noncomparative studies involving a range of patient populations and serious infections (mostly bone, joint and soft tissue, and pneumonia and febrile episodes in neutropenia), these cephalosporins achieved equivalent efficacy and tolerability, and considerable cost savings, since patients were able to receive all or part of their treatment in the home or outpatient setting. However, more comparative studies of ambulatory parenteral therapy in the inpatient setting or ambulatory oral therapy are necessary to further clarify the true cost effectiveness of this type of healthcare delivery. This is increasingly relevant in countries where parenteral antimicrobials are not the 'standard of care' in managing many serious infections. Published experience to date confirms that third generation cephalosporins, particularly ceftriaxone, should have an essential place in the therapeutic formulary of any ambulatory parenteral antibiotic programme.
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.