ArticleInfectious diseases and therapy2015
In Vitro Activity of Oral Cephalosporins (Cefprozil and Cefixime) Against Ciprofloxacin-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae from Community-Acquired Urinary-Tract Infections.
Article in Infectious diseases and therapy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cefixime versus prulifloxacin as a prophylactic treatment for prostate biopsy: a randomized study.Central European journal of urology · 2020Article
- Development and Validation of an HPLC-MS/MS Method for Rapid Simultaneous Determination of Cefprozil Diastereomers in Human Plasma.International journal of analytical chemistry · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe global emergence of pathogens of urinary-tract infections resistant to ciprofloxacin or producing extended-spectrum β-lactamases (ESBL) led us to investigate the activity of older antimicrobials such as cefprozil and cefixime against a recent broad collection of urine enterobacteria from 2012 and 2013.
methodsMinimum inhibitory concentrations and minimum bactericidal concentrations of cefprozil, cefixime and ciprofloxacin were determined against 293 Escherichia coli (40 ESBL producers), 54 Klebsiella pneumoniae (10 ESBL producers) and 53 Proteus mirabilis isolates.
resultsCefprozil was more active than ciprofloxacin against non-ESBL-producing E. coli (93.7% vs 80.2%, p < 0.0001); this was not the case for cefixime (85.7% vs 80.2%, p: 0.125). Overall, cefprozil and cefixime inhibited 80-90% of ciprofloxacin-resistant isolates of all studied species. However, they were active against less than 20% of ESBL-producing isolates.
conclusionResults suggest that cefprozil and cefixime remain a good therapeutic alternative against urine enterobacteria particularly in case of ciprofloxacin-resistant pathogens. Their activity against ESBL-producing pathogens is limited.
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.