Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21696619›Full record

SynthesisBMC infectious diseases2011

Does prolonged β-lactam infusions improve clinical outcomes compared to intermittent infusions? A meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized, controlled trials.

Pranita D Tamma, Nirupama Putcha, Yong D Suh, Kyle J Van Arendonk, Michael L Rinke

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC infectious diseases, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
7.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 85 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Implementing an Antibiotic Stewardship Program: Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2016
    Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Difficult-to-TreatAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. When and How to Use MIC in Clinical Practice?Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Pranita D TammaDepartment of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA. ptamma1@jhmi.edu
Nirupama Putcha
Yong D Suh
Kyle J Van Arendonk
Michael L Rinke
Johns Hopkins University · US

Funding

Institute for Clinical and Translational Research (KL2)KL2RR025006 · NCRR · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI FORD, DANIEL ERNEST · 2007 to 2011
$12.9M
NCRR NIH HHS 5KL2RR025006
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe emergence of multi-drug resistant Gram-negatives (MDRGNs) coupled with an alarming scarcity of new antibiotics has forced the optimization of the therapeutic potential of available antibiotics. To exploit the time above the minimum inhibitory concentration mechanism of β-lactams, prolonging their infusion may improve outcomes. The primary objective of this meta-analysis was to determine if prolonged β-lactam infusion resulted in decreased mortality and improved clinical cure compared to intermittent β-lactam infusion.

methodsRelevant studies were identified from searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL. Heterogeneity was assessed qualitatively, in addition to I2 and Chi-square statistics. Pooled relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using Mantel-Haenszel random-effects models.

resultsFourteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Prolonged infusion β-lactams were not associated with decreased mortality (n=982; RR 0.92; 95% CI:0.61-1.37) or clinical cure (n=1380; RR 1.00 95% CI:0.94-1.06) compared to intermittent infusions. Subgroup analysis for β-lactam subclasses and equivalent total daily β-lactam doses yielded similar results. Most studies had notable methodological flaws.

conclusionsNo clinical advantage was observed for prolonged infusion β-lactams. The limited number of studies with MDRGNs precluded evaluation of prolonged infusion of β-lactams for this subgroup. A large, multicenter RCT with critically ill patients infected with MDRGNs is needed.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial Agentsbeta-LactamsDrug Administration ScheduleDrug Resistance, Multiple, BacterialGram-Negative Bacterial InfectionsHumansInfusions, IntravenousRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeAnti-Bacterial Agentsbeta-Lactams

Identifiers

PMID21696619
PMCPMC3141415
OpenAlexW2099925865

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.