Trial reportWorld journal of gastroenterology2005
Single daily amikacin versus cefotaxime in the short-course treatment of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in cirrhotics.
Trial report in World journal of gastroenterology, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antibiotic treatment for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in people with decompensated liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Antibiotics for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in cirrhotic patients.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2009Pooled it
- Review
- Targeting mitochondria as a therapeutic anti-gastric cancer approach.Apoptosis : an international journal on programmed cell death · 2022Review
- Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis.World journal of gastroenterology · 2009Review
- Efficacy of current guidelines for the treatment of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in the clinical practice.World journal of gastroenterology · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo compare the efficacy and safety of single daily amikacin vs. cefotaxime in the 5-d treatment of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP).
methodsThirty-seven cirrhotic patients with SBP, 19 in group A and 18 in group B, were studied. Group A received 1 g of cefotaxime every 6 h, and group B received 500 mg of amikacin qd. Both antibiotics were administered up to 5 d and the responses were compared.
resultsInfection was cured in 15 of 19 patients (78.9%) treated with cefotaxime and in 11 of 18 (61.1%) treated with amikacin. Four patients of the Cefotaxime group (21.1%) and five patients of the Amikacin group (27.8%) died. Two in each group (10.5% vs 11.1%) had renal impairment during study period. One in each group (5.3% vs 5.6%) may be considered to suffer from nephrotoxicity due to increased urinary beta(2)-microglobulin concentration.
conclusionIn this study, single daily doses of amikacin in the treatment of SBP in cirrhotics were not associated with an increased incidence of renal impairment or nephrotoxicity. However, a 5-d regimen of amikacin is less effective than a 5-d regimen of cefotaxime in the SBP treatment.
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.