ArticleJournal of infection and chemotherapy : official journal of the Japan Society of Chemotherapy1999
Clinical evaluation methods for new antimicrobial agents to treat respiratory infections: Report of the Committee for the Respiratory System, Japan Society of Chemotherapy.
Article in Journal of infection and chemotherapy : official journal of the Japan Society of Chemotherapy, 1999. 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, 44 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of dosing frequency on the clinical efficacy of ampicillin/sulbactam in Japanese elderly patients with pneumonia: A single-center retrospective observational study.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2021Observational
- Comparison of twice a day and three times a day meropenem administration in elderly patients in a Japanese community hospital.Nagoya journal of medical science · 2018Article
- Clinical impact of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus on bacterial pneumonia: cultivation and 16S ribosomal RNA gene analysis of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid.BMC infectious diseases · 2016Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present report constitutes an attempt to improve and modify the existing clinical evaluation method for new antimicrobial agents to treat respiratory infections. One year ago, a general guideline on the clinical evaluation of antimicrobial agents to treat respiratory infections was drafted in Japanese, leaving scope for critical discussion, and this has been translated into English, as there were no major changes. In this report, respiratory infections have been discussed under the headings "acute respiratory tract infection" and pneumonia and acute exacerbation of chronic pulmonary diseases. Standardized criteria were set for the assessment of severity of infection and effectiveness of the antimicrobial agent in question. Severity was evaluated on the basis of a combined assessment of the severity of infection and severity of the clinical condition of the patients. Clinical effectiveness of the antimicrobial agent used was evaluated on the basis of clinical outcome as well as microbiological outcome of the trial. Body temperature, local pain, cough, change in sputum quality, peripheral white blood cell count, C-reactive protein level, and chest radiograph were used as the parameters for the evaluation. To maintain the quality of specimens to be examined, Geckler's classification of specimens was used. This report was constructed based on the analysis of large amounts of material collected over the years, incorporating internal and external factors concerning the present evaluation methods. The newly suggested standardized criteria for clinical evaluation of the new antimicrobial drugs are expected to be practiced properly hereupon and subjected to further improvement if necessary.
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.