Editorial commentary: Asking the right questions: morbidity, mortality, and measuring what's important in unbiased evaluations of antimicrobials.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. The Development of Third-Generation Tetracycline Antibiotics and New Perspectives.Pharmaceutics · 2021
   Review
2. The evolution of the regulatory framework for antibacterial agents.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2014
   Review
3. Clinical outcomes of tigecycline alone or in combination with other antimicrobial agents for the treatment of patients with healthcare-associated multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii infections.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2013
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Excess deaths associated with tigecycline after approval based on noninferiority trials.2012

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as