Observational studyBMC infectious diseases2014
Effectiveness of azithromycin in aspiration pneumonia: a prospective observational study.
Observational study in BMC infectious diseases, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antibacterial treatment of aspiration pneumonia in older people: a systematic review.Clinical interventions in aging · 2018Pooled it
- Article
- ERS/ESICM/ESCMID/ALAT guidelines for the management of severe community-acquired pneumonia.Intensive care medicine · 2023Article
- The Clinical Significance of Anaerobic Coverage in the Antibiotic Treatment of Aspiration Pneumonia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAspiration pneumonia is an urgent health concern with high mortality and long hospitalization in industrialized and aging countries. However, there is no information about the effectiveness of azithromycin (AZM) for the treatment of aspiration pneumonia. This study investigated if AZM is effective for the treatment of aspiration pneumonia.
methodsPatients with aspiration pneumonia with no risk of multidrug-resistant pathogens were included in this prospective study at Kishiwada City Hospital from December 2011 to June 2013. Patients were divided into the ampicillin/sulbactam (ABPC/SBT) and AZM (intravenous injection) groups. The success rates of 1(st)-line antibiotic therapy, mortality, length of hospital stay, and total antibiotic costs were compared.
resultsThere were 81 and 36 patients in the ABPC/SBT and AZM groups, respectively. There was no significant difference in the success rate of 1(st)-line antibiotics between the groups (74.1% vs. 75.0%, respectively, P = 1.000). Mortality and hospitalization periods did not differ between the 2 groups (11.1% vs. 8.3%, P = 0.753, and 22.3 ± 7.3 days vs. 20.5 ± 8.1 days, P = 0.654, respectively). However, the total antibiotic costs were significantly lower in the AZM group than the ABPC/SBT group (2.19 ± 1.65 × 10,000 yen vs. 2.94 ± 1.67 × 10,000 yen, respectively, P = 0.034). The febrile period of the ABPC/SBT group was significantly shorter than that of the AZM group (P = 0.025).
conclusionsIn this small prospective non-randomized observational study, we found no statistically significant differences in mortality or antibiotic failure in patients receiving AZM compared to ABPC/SBT for the treatment of patients with aspiration pneumonia who require hospital admission and have no risk of drug-resistant pathogens. Therefore, AZM may be another first choice of antibiotic treatment for patients with aspiration pneumonia when they have no risk of multidrug-resistant pathogens.
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.