Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20426496›Full record

ReviewDrugs2010

Anaerobic infections: update on treatment considerations.

Elisabeth Nagy

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Drugs, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 107 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. A challenging case of thoracic empyema caused byRespiratory medicine case reports · 2022
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. The Pathogenic Role ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Review
  19. Nonpuerperal breast abscess due toClinical case reports · 2020
    Article
  20. Relevance of anaerobic bacteremia in adult patients: A never-ending story?European journal of microbiology & immunology · 2020
    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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Elisabeth NagyInstitute of Clinical Microbiology, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary. nagye@mlab.szote.u-szeged.hu
University of Szeged · HU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Anaerobic bacteria are the predominant indigenous flora of humans and, as a result, play an important role in infections, some of which are serious with a high mortality rate. These opportunistic pathogens are frequently missed in cultures of clinical samples because of shortcomings in collection and transport procedures as well as lack of isolation and susceptibility testing of anaerobes in many clinical microbiology laboratories. Correlation of clinical failures with known antibacterial resistance of anaerobic bacteria is seldom possible. Changes in resistance over time, and the discovery and characterization of resistance determinants in anaerobic bacteria, has increased recognition of problems in empirical treatment and has even resulted in changes in treatment guidelines. This review discusses the role of anaerobic bacteria in the normal flora of humans, their involvement in different mixed infections, developments in antibacterial resistance of the most frequent anaerobic pathogens and possible new treatment options.

Indexed as

AnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsBacteria, AnaerobicDrug Resistance, Multiple, BacterialGram-Negative Anaerobic BacteriaGram-Negative Bacterial InfectionsGram-Positive Bacterial InfectionsHumansAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID20426496
OpenAlexW1995703729

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.