Evidence map›Paper›PMID 1726210›Full record

ArticleDrugs1991

Microbiological evaluation of cefpodoxime proxetil.

B Wiedemann, E Luhmer, M T Zühlsdorf

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. 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 · 1993
    Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

B WiedemannDepartment of Pharmaceutical Microbiology, University of Bonn, Federal Republic of Germany.
E Luhmer
M T Zühlsdorf
University of Bonn · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

beta-LactamasesCefpodoxime ProxetilCeftizoximeGram-Negative BacteriaGram-Positive BacteriaHumansMicrobial Sensitivity TestsProdrugsbeta-LactamasesCefpodoxime ProxetilCeftizoximeProdrugs

Identifiers

PMID1726210
OpenAlexW2093094541

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.