ArticleAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2011
In vitro activity of ceftaroline against a broad spectrum of recent clinical anaerobic isolates.
Article in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ceftaroline Fosamil for Treatment of Pediatric Complicated Skin and Soft Tissue Infections and Community-Acquired Pneumonia.Paediatric drugs · 2021Review
- Role of cephalosporins in the era of Clostridium difficile infection.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2017Review
- Review
- Ceftaroline fosamil: a brief clinical review.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2013Article
- Review
- Review
- Critical appraisal of ceftaroline in the management of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia and skin infections.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2012Article
- In vitro activity of ceftaroline against a broad spectrum of recent clinical anaerobic isolates.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2011Article
- The changing epidemiology of Clostridium difficile infections.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2010Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The in vitro activity of ceftaroline was compared with those of ceftriaxone, clindamycin, imipenem, metronidazole, moxifloxacin, tigecycline, and vancomycin against 514 clinical anaerobic isolates using Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) standard methodology. Ceftaroline demonstrated good to excellent activity against Gram-positive anaerobic pathogens and limited activity against Gram-negative pathogens, particularly Bacteroides fragilis group isolates.
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.