ArticlePneumonia (Nathan Qld.)2017
Oral versus intravenous clarithromycin in moderate to severe community-acquired pneumonia: an observational study.
Article in Pneumonia (Nathan Qld.), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative efficacy of azithromycin versus clarithromycin in combination with beta-lactams to treat community-acquired pneumonia in hospitalized patients: a systematic review.The Journal of international medical research · 2021Pooled it
- Impact of macrolide therapy on clinical outcomes in hospitalized pneumonia patients: a retrospective study from Lebanese hospitals.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Physician awareness of fluid volume administered with intravenous antibiotics: a structured interview-based study.Clinical and experimental emergency medicine · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesBritish Thoracic Society guidelines recommend clarithromycin in addition to beta-lactam antibiotics for patients with community-acquired pneumonia and CURB-65 score 2-5. Intravenous therapy is commonly used but there are few data on whether oral therapy is equally effective.
methodsThis observational study used propensity matching to compare two groups of patients with moderate to severe community-acquired pneumonia (CURB-65 score 2-5) treated with oral (
resultsThere was no significant difference in 30-day mortality (16.8% for intravenous [IV] group vs. 14.6% for oral group, hazard ratio for IV group 1.11 95% CI 0.70-1.78), ICU admission (10.6% in both groups) or complications (10.6% for IV group and 9.3% for oral group) between the groups. The time to clinical stability in both cohorts was a median of 5 days (interquartile range 3-7 days,
conclusionWhere the oral route is not compromised, oral macrolides appear to be equivalent to IV in treating moderate to severe CAP.
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.