ArticleInfection2018
Is fluoroquinolone monotherapy a useful alternative treatment for Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteraemia?
Article in Infection, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Female Sex and Mortality in Patients With Gram-Negative Bacteremia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JAMA network open · 2025Pooled it
- The Use of Step-Down Oral Antibiotic Therapy for Uncomplicated Gram-Negative Bacteremia and Risk Factors for Adverse Outcomes.Open forum infectious diseases · 2026Trial
- Oral Antibiotics for Bacteremia and Infective Endocarditis: Current Evidence and Future Perspectives.Microorganisms · 2023Review
- Beta-Lactam vs. Fluoroquinolone Monotherapy forAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Oral fluoroquinolones for definitive treatment of gram-negative bacteremia in cancer patients.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021Article
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 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposePseudomonas aeruginosa bacteraemia is associated with high mortality, and most monotherapies are beta-lactam-based. We aimed to investigate clinical outcomes of definitive fluoroquinolone monotherapy versus beta-lactam monotherapy for P. aeruginosa bacteraemia.
methodsThis retrospective study enrolled adult patients receiving definitive monotherapy with beta-lactam or fluoroquinolone between November 2013 and November 2014 at Taipei Veterans General Hospital. The independent risk factors for 28-day mortality were analyzed by logistic regression and propensity score-adjusted analysis.
resultsAmong the 105 patients enrolled, 78 patients received beta-lactams and 27 received fluoroquinolones (20 with ciprofloxacin and 7 with levofloxacin). Primary bacteraemia (39.0%) and urinary tract infections (37.1%) were the most common sources of bacteraemia. The 28-day mortality rate was 11.1% for those receiving fluoroquinolones and 32.1% for those receiving beta-lactams (P = 0.062). The 28-day mortality rate between the two groups stratified by APACHE II and Pitt bacteraemia scores showed no significant differences in each category. Propensity score-adjusted multivariate analysis revealed that definitive therapy with a fluoroquinolone was not associated with 28-day mortality (OR 0.42; 95% CI 0.08-2.23; P = 0.305).
conclusionsFluoroquinolone might be an alternative to beta-lactam as a definitive monotherapy for P. aeruginosa bacteraemia provided they are active in vitro. Our results could be a basis for further studies and provide a possible target for antibiotic stewardship interventions in P. aeruginosa bacteraemia.
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.