Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25887226›Full record

SynthesisCritical care (London, England)2015

Nebulized antibiotics for ventilator-associated pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Fernando G Zampieri, Antonio P Nassar, Dimitri Gusmao-Flores, Leandro U Taniguchi, Antoni Torres, Otavio T Ranzani

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Critical care (London, England), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Efficacy of inhaled antibiotics in children with ventilator-associated pneumonia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of critical care medicine (Universitatea de Medicina si Farmacie din Targu-Mures) · 2026
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Administration of dry powders during respiratory supports.Annals of translational medicine · 2021
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Fernando G ZampieriCooperative Network for Research - AMIB-Net, Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, São Paulo, Brazil. fgzampieri@gmail.com.
Antonio P NassarCooperative Network for Research - AMIB-Net, Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, São Paulo, Brazil. paulo_nassar@yahoo.com.br.
Dimitri Gusmao-FloresCooperative Network for Research - AMIB-Net, Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, São Paulo, Brazil. dimitrigusmao@gmail.com.
Leandro U TaniguchiEmergency Medicine Discipline, Faculty of Medicine, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. leandro.taniguchi@gmail.com.
Antoni TorresInstitut Clinic de Pneumologia i Cirurgia Toràcica, Servei de Pneumologia, UVIR, Universitat de Barcelona, IDIBAPS, CIBERES, Barcelona, Spain. atorres@clinic.ub.es.
Otavio T RanzaniCooperative Network for Research - AMIB-Net, Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, São Paulo, Brazil. otavioranzani@yahoo.com.br.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionNebulized antibiotics are a promising new treatment option for ventilator-associated pneumonia. However, more evidence of the benefit of this therapy is required.

methodsThe Medline, Scopus, EMBASE, Biological Abstracts, CAB Abstracts, Food Science and Technology Abstracts, CENTRAL, Scielo and Lilacs databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials or matched observational studies that compared nebulized antibiotics with or without intravenous antibiotics to intravenous antibiotics alone for ventilator-associated pneumonia treatment. Two reviewers independently collected data and assessed outcomes and risk of bias. The primary outcome was clinical cure. Secondary outcomes were microbiological cure, ICU and hospital mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay and adverse events. A mixed-effect model meta-analysis was performed. Trial sequential analysis was used for the main outcome of interest.

resultsTwelve studies were analyzed, including six randomized controlled trials. For the main outcome analysis, 812 patients were included. Nebulized antibiotics were associated with higher rates of clinical cure (risk ratio (RR) = 1.23; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.05 to 1.43; I(2) = 34%; D(2) = 45%). Nebulized antibiotics were not associated with microbiological cure (RR = 1.24; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.62; I(2) = 62.5), mortality (RR = 0.90; CI 95%, 0.76 to 1.08; I(2) = 0%), duration of mechanical ventilation (standardized mean difference = -0.10 days; 95% CI, -1.22 to 1.00; I(2) = 96.5%), ICU length of stay (standardized mean difference = 0.14 days; 95% CI, -0.46 to 0.73; I(2) = 89.2%) or renal toxicity (RR = 1.05; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.57; I(2) = 15.6%). Regarding the primary outcome, the number of patients included was below the information size required for a definitive conclusion by trial sequential analysis; therefore, our results regarding this parameter are inconclusive.

conclusionsNebulized antibiotics seem to be associated with higher rates of clinical cure in the treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia. However, the apparent benefit in the clinical cure rate observed by traditional meta-analysis does not persist after trial sequential analysis. Additional high-quality studies on this subject are highly warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42014009116 . Registered 29 March 2014.

Indexed as

Nebulizers and VaporizersAnti-Bacterial AgentsHumansPneumonia, Ventilator-AssociatedRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRespiration, ArtificialAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID25887226
PMCPMC4403838

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.