Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24867989›Full record

ReviewAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2014

Alternative strategies for proof-of-principle studies of antibacterial agents.

Axel Dalhoff, Andrej Weintraub, Carl Erik Nord

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. 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

3 authors.

Axel DalhoffUniversity Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein, Institute for Infection Medicine, Kiel, Germany adalhoff@t-online.de.
Andrej WeintraubDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Karolinska University Hospital, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Carl Erik NordDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Karolinska University Hospital, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The proof that a new antibacterial agent is not only active in vitro but also effective in vivo under clinically relevant conditions is currently provided (i) by using appropriate nonclinical models of infection and pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) analysis providing evidence of the likelihood of clinical efficacy and (ii) by examining the study drug in exploratory clinical trials, as well as dose and schedule finding during phase II of clinical development. This approach is both time-consuming and costly. Furthermore, PK-PD targets for any novel antibacterial agent cannot be derived from studies with experimental animals. Therefore, alternative strategies have to be identified to prove the principle that a novel antibacterial agent is active under clinically relevant conditions. This review summarizes evidence that the quantitative analysis of shifts in the viable counts of pathogens in infected patients or the evaluation of the PD effect of an investigational agent on indicator organisms of the human resident microflora or colonizers of healthy volunteers, if paralleled with PK monitoring of serum and the target site, provides an alternative to a classical proof-of-principle study in the course of a phase II study program.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsClinical Trials, Phase II as TopicColony Count, MicrobialComputer SimulationDrug MonitoringDrugs, InvestigationalHumansMicrobial Sensitivity TestsMicrobiotaAnti-Bacterial AgentsDrugs, Investigational

Identifiers

PMID24867989
PMCPMC4136043

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.