SynthesisBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2018
Meta-analysis of trials comparing cefazolin to antistaphylococcal penicillins in the treatment of methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia.
Synthesis in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of cefazolin versus antistaphylococcal penicillins for the treatment of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC infectious diseases · 2018Pooled it
- Meta-analysis of trials comparing cefazolin to antistaphylococcal penicillins in the treatment of methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2018Pooled it
- Effectiveness and safety of cefazolin vs antistaphylococcal penicillins for methicillin-susceptibleAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2026Observational
- Re-examining cephalosporin activity against methicillin-susceptibleJAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2026Article
- β-Lactam Inoculum Effect in Methicillin-Susceptible Staphylococcus aureus Infective Endocarditis.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Effectiveness and safety of cefazolin versus cloxacillin in endocarditis due to methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus spp.: a multicenter propensity weighted cohort study.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2024Article
- Native Infective Endocarditis: A State-of-the-Art-Review.Microorganisms · 2024Review
- Flucloxacillin and cefazolin for treatment of Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infection.Infection · 2024Observational
- A Review of Omadacycline for Potential Utility in the Military Health System for the Treatment of Wound Infections.Military medicine · 2024Review
- Cephalotin Versus Dicloxacillin for the Treatment of Methicillin-SusceptibleAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Disc Test for Detecting Staphylococcus aureus Strains Producing Type A and Type C β-Lactamases.Microbiology spectrum · 2023Article
- Targeted Therapy of Severe Infections Caused byMicroorganisms · 2023Article
- Article
- Emerging Treatment Options for Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections and Bloodstream Infections Caused byInfection and drug resistance · 2022Review
- Antistaphylococcal penicillins vs. cefazolin in the treatment of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus infective endocarditis: a quasi-experimental monocentre study.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2021Observational
- The Cost-effectiveness of Cefazolin Compared With Antistaphylococcal Penicillins for the Treatment of Methicillin-SensitiveOpen forum infectious diseases · 2021Article
- Cefazolin Versus Anti-Staphylococcal Penicillins for the Treatment of Patients with Methicillin-Susceptible Staphylococcus aureus Infection: A Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2019Article
- Comparative Effectiveness of Exclusive Exposure to Nafcillin or Oxacillin, Cefazolin, Piperacillin/Tazobactam, and Fluoroquinolones Among a National Cohort of Veterans With Methicillin-SusceptibleOpen forum infectious diseases · 2019Article
- A review of evidence, antimicrobial stability, and feasibility considerations for OPAT continuous infusion.Therapeutic advances in infectious diseaseReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThe objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness and safety of cefazolin vs. antistaphylococcal penicillin (ASP) in the treatment of methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) bacteraemia.
methodsThe databases of PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central were used to identify comparative trials of cefazolin vs. ASP in MSSA bacteraemia. Meta-analysis of included trials was performed to assess any differences regarding mortality, clinical cure, recurrence and withdrawal from adverse effects between groups. Data were analysed using fixed effect model. Studies were weighted using Mantel-Haenszel methodology. Heterogeneity was calculated using the I
resultsNine retrospective and one prospective trials were identified involving 4728 patients, 2954 with ASP and 1774 with cefazolin. Meta-analysis showed a lower mortality rate with cefazolin vs. ASP using fixed effect model [risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69-0.88, P < 0.0001] with borderline high heterogeneity (I
conclusionOur meta-analysis of retrospective data demonstrate that cefazolin is more effective and safer ASP in patients with MSSA bacteraemia from various causes. Low quality of trials, borderline high heterogeneity, and possible publication bias may limit the validity of our findings. Randomized trials are needed to confirm these findings.
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.