Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15106168›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2004

Antibiotics for community acquired pneumonia in adult outpatients.

L M Bjerre, T J M Verheij, M M Kochen

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00372541 (Ceftriaxone Versus Chloramphenicol for Treatment of Severe Pneumonia in Children Aged Less Than Five Years at Mulago Hospital), which is not on this map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT00372541 phase3completednot on this mapstarted 2006, after this paper: background citation

Ceftriaxone Versus Chloramphenicol for Treatment of Severe Pneumonia in Children Aged Less Than Five Years at Mulago Hospital: A Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorMakerere UniversityRan2006 to 2007Enrolled348ConditionsPneumoniaArmsceftriaxone
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Antibiotics for community-acquired pneumonia in adult outpatients.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014
    Pooled it
  2. Guidelines for the management of adult lower respiratory tract infections--full version.Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases · 2011
    Guideline
  3. Trial
  4. Comparative Safety of Different Antibiotic Regimens for the Treatment of Outpatient Community-Acquired Pneumonia Among Otherwise Healthy Adults.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Viral and Mycoplasma pneumoniae community-acquired pneumonia and novel clinical outcome evaluation in ambulatory adult patients in China.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2010
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

L M BjerreFamily Medicine / General Practice, University of Göttingen, Humboldtallee 38, Göttingen, Germany, 31139.
T J M Verheij
M M Kochen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCommunity-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a common condition representing a significant disease burden for the community, particularly for the elderly. Because antibiotics are helpful in treating CAP, they are the standard treatment and CAP thus contributes significantly to antibiotic use, which is associated with the development of bacterial resistance and side-effects. Although several studies have been published concerning CAP and its treatment, the available data arises mainly from studies conducted in hospitalized patients and outpatients. There is no concise summary of the available evidence that can help clinicians in choosing the most appropriate antibiotic.

objectivesOur goal was to summarize the evidence currently available from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) concerning the efficacy of alternative antibiotic treatments for CAP in ambulatory patients above 12 years of age. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2003) which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's trial register; MEDLINE (January 1966 to September week 3, 2003), and EMBASE (January 1974 to March 2003). Studies were also identified by checking the bibliographies of studies and review articles retrieved as well as by perusing medical journals. To identify any additional published or unpublished studies, we contacted the following antibiotics manufacturers: Abbott, AstraZeneca, Aventis, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann-LaRoche, Lilly, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Pharmacia, Sanofi, and Yamanouchi. No language restrictions were applied in any of the search strategies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which one or more antibiotics were tested for the treatment of CAP in ambulatory adolescent or adult patients. Studies testing one or more antibiotic and reporting the diagnostic criteria used in selecting patients as well as the clinical outcomes achieved were included. No language restrictions were applied. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted and study reports assessed by two independent reviewers (LMB and TJMV). Authors of studies were contacted as needed to resolve any ambiguities in the study reports. The data were analyzed using the Cochrane Collaboration's RevMan 4.2.2 Software. Differences between reviewers were resolved by discussion and consensus. MAIN

resultsThree randomized controlled trials involving a total of 622 patients aged 12 years and older diagnosed with community acquired pneumonia were included. The quality of the studies and of the reporting was variable. A variety of clinical, radiological and bacteriological diagnostic criteria and outcomes were reported. Overall there was no significant difference in the efficacy of the various antibiotics under study. REVIEWERS'

conclusionsCurrently available evidence from RCTs is insufficient to make evidence-based recommendations for the choice of antibiotic to be used for the treatment of community acquired pneumonia in ambulatory patients. Pooling of study data was limited by the very low number of studies. Individual study results do not reveal significant differences in efficacy between various antibiotics and antibiotic groups. Multi-drug comparisons using similar administration schedules are needed to provide the evidence necessary for practice recommendations.

Indexed as

AdultAnti-Bacterial AgentsCommunity-Acquired InfectionsHumansPneumoniaRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.