Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15990986›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2005

Bowel colonization with resistant gram-negative bacilli after antimicrobial therapy of intra-abdominal infections: observations from two randomized comparative clinical trials of ertapenem therapy.

M J Dinubile, I Friedland, C Y Chan, M R Motyl, H Giezek, M Shivaprakash, R A Weinstein, J P Quinn

Abstract readClinical TrialComparative StudyMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 92 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Antimicrobial prophylaxis in colorectal surgery: focus on ertapenem.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2009
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

M J DinubileMerck & Co., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA. mark_dinubile@merck.com
I Friedland
C Y Chan
M R Motyl
H Giezek
M Shivaprakash
R A Weinstein
J P Quinn
Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA (United States) · USRush University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The selection of resistant gram-negative bacilli by broad-spectrum antibiotic use is a major issue in infection control. The aim of this comparative study was to assess the impact of different antimicrobial regimens commonly used to treat intra-abdominal infections on the susceptibility patterns of gram-negative bowel flora after completion of therapy. In two international randomized open-label trials with laboratory blinding, adults with complicated intra-abdominal infection requiring surgery received piperacillin-tazobactam (OASIS 1) or ceftriaxone/metronidazole (OASIS II) versus ertapenem for 4-14 days. Rectal swabs were obtained at baseline, end of therapy, and 2 weeks post-therapy. Escherichia coli and Klebsiella spp. were tested for production of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL). Enterobacteriaceae resistant to the agent used were recovered from 19 of 156 (12.2%) piperacillin-tazobactam recipients at the end of therapy compared to 1 (0.6%) patient at baseline (p<0.001) in OASIS I, and from 33 of 193 (17.1%) ceftriaxone/metronidazole recipients at the end of therapy compared to 5 (2.6%) patients at baseline (p<0.001) in OASIS II. Ertapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae were recovered from 1 of 155 and 1 of 196 ertapenem recipients at the end of therapy versus 0 and 1 ertapenem recipients at baseline in OASIS I and II, respectively. Resistant Enterobacteriaceae emerged significantly less often during treatment with ertapenem than with the comparator in both OASIS I (p<0.001) and OASIS II (p<0.001). The prevalence of ESBL-producers increased significantly during therapy in OASIS II among 193 ceftriaxone/metronidazole recipients (from 4 [2.1%] to 18 [9.3%]) (p<0.001), whereas no ertapenem recipient was colonized with an ESBL-producer at the end of therapy in either study. Selection for imipenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa was uncommon in all treatment groups. In these studies, the frequency of bowel colonization with resistant Enterobacteriaceae substantially increased in patients treated with either piperacillin-tazobactam or ceftriaxone/metronidazole, but not in patients treated with ertapenem.

Indexed as

Drug Resistance, BacterialAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnti-Bacterial Agentsbeta-LactamsCarrier StateCeftriaxoneDigestive System Surgical ProceduresDrug Therapy, CombinationErtapenemFemaleGram-Negative BacteriaGram-Negative Bacterial InfectionsHumansAnti-Bacterial Agentsbeta-LactamsCeftriaxoneErtapenemLactamsMetronidazolePenicillanic AcidPiperacillinPiperacillin, Tazobactam Drug Combination

Identifiers

PMID15990986
OpenAlexW2078802833

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.