ArticleDrugs1991
Microbiological evaluation of cefpodoxime proxetil.
Article in Drugs, 1991. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical and economic considerations in the use of third-generation oral cephalosporins.PharmacoEconomics · 1995Trial
- Impact of cefpodoxime proxetil and amoxicillin on the normal oral and intestinal microflora.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 1993Trial
- Cefpodoxime proxetil: a review of its use in the management of bacterial infections in paediatric patients.Paediatric drugs · 2001Review
- Review
- Microbiological conclusions.Drugs · 1991Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cefpodoxime, the active de-esterified molecule of the orally absorbable cephalosporin cefpodoxime proxetil, inhibits streptococci, Neisseria spp., and most Enterobacteriaceae, with MIC50 and/or MIC90 values of less than or equal to 2 mg/L; with regard to the latter family of bacteria, the MIC50 and/or MIC90 values of cefpodoxime are consistently greater than or equal to 4 mg/L for only Enterobacter cloacae, Citrobacter freundii, Serratia marcescens, and Morganella morganii. The MIC50 of cedpodoxime for coagulase-negative staphylococci is greater than 2 mg/L, while the MIC for Staphylococcus aureus strains is 4 mg/L. In comparison with other orally absorbable cephalosporins, cefpodoxime is slightly less active than cefixime, cefetamet, and cefotiam against Gram-negative bacteria, but more active than cefuroxime, cefaclor, and cefalexin. Against staphylococci, the activity of cefpodoxime is comparable to that of cefotiam and cefuroxime, and superior to that of cefaclor, while cefixime and cefetamet have insufficient activity against these species. In common with other cephalosporins, cefpodoxime has no activity against enterococci. In vitro models simulating human serum cefpodoxime concentrations demonstrate that a dosage regimen of 200mg is probably sufficient to treat most infections. However, further study is needed to clarify whether infections due to bacteria such as S. aureus, with higher cefpodoxime MICs, can be treated with this dose regimen.
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.