Evidence map›Paper›PMID 1791075›Full record

ReviewInfection1991

Cephalosporins--cefotaxime 10 years later, a major drug with continued use.

H C Neu

Abstract readComparative StudyReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Infection, 1991. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Decision analysis modelling of costs and outcomes following cefepime monotherapy in Canada.The Canadian journal of infectious diseases = Journal canadien des maladies infectieuses · 1997
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Cefotaxime desensitization.The Clinical investigator · 1993
    Article
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

1 author.

H C NeuDivision of Infectious Diseases, College of Physicians & Surgeons, New York, New York 10032.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cefotaxime has in the past decade proved to be a most useful agent. It has established the efficacy and safety suggested in the early in vitro, pharmacological and clinical papers. It remains an excellent agent to treat many community and hospital-acquired respiratory infections, urinary tract infections, meningitis, particularly in pediatrics, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis and selected abdominal and gynecological infections.

Indexed as

Bacterial Infectionsbeta-LactamasesCefotaximeCephalosporinsDrug Resistance, MicrobialGram-Negative BacteriaGram-Positive BacteriaHumansMicrobial Sensitivity TestsTime Factorsbeta-LactamasesCefotaximeCephalosporins

Identifiers

PMID1791075

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.