Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16048928›Full record

Trial reportAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2005

Acquisition of resistant bowel flora during a double-blind randomized clinical trial of ertapenem versus piperacillin-tazobactam therapy for intraabdominal infections.

Mark J DiNubile, Joseph W Chow, Vilas Satishchandran, Adam Polis, Mary R Motyl, Murray A Abramson, Hedy Teppler

Abstract readClinical TrialComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Impact ofPharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Impact of antimicrobial therapy on the gut microbiome.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2019
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Canadian practice guidelines for surgical intra-abdominal infections.The Canadian journal of infectious diseases & medical microbiology = Journal canadien des maladies infectieuses et de la microbiologie medicale · 2010
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mark J DiNubileMerck Research Laboratories, P.O. Box 4, BL3-4, West Point, PA 19486, USA. mark_dinubile@merck.com
Joseph W Chow
Vilas Satishchandran
Adam Polis
Mary R Motyl
Murray A Abramson
Hedy Teppler
United States Military Academy · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bowel colonization with resistant bacteria can develop in patients receiving broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy. We compared the impact of two antimicrobial regimens often used to treat intraabdominal infections on susceptibility patterns of bowel flora at the end of therapy. In a double-blind clinical trial, adults with complicated intraabdominal infection requiring surgery were randomized to receive piperacillin-tazobactam (3.375 g every 6 h) or ertapenem (1 g once a day) for 4 to 14 days. Rectal swabs were obtained at baseline and at the end of study therapy to determine the acquisition rates of Enterobacteriaceae resistant to the study drug, extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Escherichia coli or Klebsiella species, Pseudomonas aeruginosa resistant to imipenem or piperacillin-tazobactam, and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecalis or Enterococcus faecium. Treated patients were assessable for the acquisition of resistant bacteria if appropriate specimens were obtained at both time points. Enterobacteriaceae resistant to the treatment received were acquired during study therapy by 8/122 assessable piperacillin-tazobactam recipients (6.6%) compared to 0/122 assessable ertapenem recipients (P = 0.007). Neither ESBL-producing E. coli or Klebsiella species nor P. aeruginosa resistant to piperacillin-tazobactam was isolated from patients in either treatment group. Imipenem-resistant P. aeruginosa was acquired by two of the ertapenem recipients (1.6%) versus zero of the piperacillin-tazobactam recipients (P = 0.50). Vancomycin-resistant enterococci were acquired during therapy by 8/125 assessable ertapenem recipients (6.4%) versus 2/123 assessable piperacillin-tazobactam recipients (1.6%; P = 0.10). In this study, the acquisition of resistant Enterobacteriaceae occurred significantly more often in patients treated with piperacillin-tazobactam than in those treated with ertapenem.

Indexed as

Drug Resistance, BacterialAbdominal AbscessAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnti-Bacterial Agentsbeta-LactamsDouble-Blind MethodDrug Therapy, CombinationEnterobacteriaceaeErtapenemFemaleHumansLactamsMaleAnti-Bacterial Agentsbeta-LactamsErtapenemLactamsPenicillanic AcidPiperacillinPiperacillin, Tazobactam Drug Combination

Identifiers

PMID16048928
PMCPMC1196251
OpenAlexW2145543897

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.