ReviewDrugs in R&D2017
A Review of Clinical Outcomes Associated with Two Meropenem Dosing Strategies.
Review in Drugs in R&D, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Characterization of sulopenem antimicrobial activity usingMicrobiology spectrum · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Meropenem is a carbapenem antibiotic that exhibits time-dependent bactericidal activity, traditionally dosed intravenously at 1 g every 8 h. In order to maximize its pharmacodynamic activity and reduce costs, an alternative regimen employed by many institutions is 500 mg every 6 h. The objective of this review was to summarize and evaluate published literature comparing clinical outcomes associated with these two meropenem dosing regimens. The literature was searched up to October 2016 using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases. Three retrospective cohort studies were identified that compared clinical outcomes in general infectious disease patients (two studies) and patients with febrile neutropenia (one study). All studies reported no difference in clinical outcomes (clinical success, time to defervescence, sign or symptom resolution, length of stay, mortality, need for other antibiotics, and seizure rates). One study reported reduced economic costs with the alternative dosing. Interpretation of findings was primarily limited by small sample sizes and generalizability. Based on the data reviewed, the alternative dosing regimen of meropenem 500 mg intravenously every 6 h could be considered a therapeutic option. Future studies are needed to confirm the findings of this review, especially in high-risk populations such as immunocompromised patients or those with severe infections.
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.