Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26986165›Full record

SynthesisMedicine2016

Tigecycline Treatment for Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae Infections: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Wentao Ni, Yuliang Han, Jie Liu, Chuanqi Wei, Jin Zhao, Junchang Cui, Rui Wang, Youning Liu

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

60 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 109 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Clinical carbapenem-resistantMicrobiology spectrum · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Frontiers in microbiology · 2024
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Wentao NiFrom the Department of Respiratory Diseases (WN, CW, JZ, JC, YL), Chinese PLA General Hospital; Department of Neurology (YH), Chinese PLA 305 Hospital; Department of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery (JL); and Department of Clinical Pharmacology (RW), Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Yuliang Han
Jie Liu
Chuanqi Wei
Jin Zhao
Junchang Cui
Rui Wang
Youning Liu
Chinese PLA General Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) infections are prevalent worldwide; they have few effective treatments and this jeopardizes public health. Clinicians often use tigecycline to combat CRE, but its clinical efficacy remains controversial. Therefore, to compare the efficacy and safety of tigecycline in treating CRE infections compared with that of other antimicrobial agents, and to evaluate whether combination therapy and high-dose regimens are beneficial, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. PubMed and Embase were searched for controlled trials or cohort studies reporting the efficacy and/or safety of tigecycline-based regimens to treat CRE infections. Statistical analyses were performed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis V2.2. All meta-analyses were performed based on fixed- or random-effects model, and the I method was used to assess heterogeneity. Twenty-one controlled studies and 5 single-arm studies were included in this systematic review. With regard to the controlled studies, the tigecycline groups did not differ significantly from the control groups in terms of overall mortality (Odds ratio (OR) = 0.96 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.75-1.22; P = 0.73]), clinical response rate (OR = 0.58 [95% CI = 0.31-1.09; P = 0.09]), or microbiological response rate (OR = 0.46 [95% CI = 0.15-1.44; P = 0.18]). Subgroup analyses showed that 30-day mortality was significantly lower in patients who received tigecycline combination therapy than in those who received monotherapy (OR = 1.83 [95% CI = 1.07-3.12; P = 0.03]) and other antibiotic regimens (OR = 0.59 [95% CI = 0.39-0.88; P = 0.01]), respectively. In addition, high-dose tigecycline regimens differed significantly from standard dose schedules in terms of ICU mortality (OR = 12.48 [95% CI = 2.06-75.43; P = 0.006]). The results of the 5 single-arm studies corroborated the findings of the controlled studies. Our results indicated that the efficacy of tigecycline in treating CRE infections is similar to that of other antibiotics. Tigecycline combination therapy and high-dose regimens may be more effective than monotherapy and standard-dose regimens, respectively. Nonetheless, considering that the current available evidence is limited, well-designed randomized controlled trials are urgently needed to clarify the comparative efficacy of tigecycline in treating CRE infections.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsCarbapenemsDrug Resistance, BacterialDrug Therapy, CombinationEnterobacteriaceae InfectionsHumansMinocyclineTigecyclineAnti-Bacterial AgentsCarbapenemsMinocyclineTigecycline

Identifiers

PMID26986165
PMCPMC4839946
OpenAlexW2336621586

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.