ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2018
Pharmaceutical analysis of different antibiotic regimens in the treatment of lower respiratory tract infection.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Meta-Analysis on the Chinese Herbal FormulaFrontiers in pharmacology · 2020Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study aimed to discuss and compare the effects and expenses of different antibiotic regimens in the treatment of lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI). A retrospective analysis was performed on 200 patients diagnosed with LRTI and treated at the Department of Respiratory Medicine of Dongying People's Hospital from February 2015 to May 2017. The patients were randomly divided into Group A, Group B, Group C and Group D, with 50 cases in each group, and were treated with ceftriaxone sodium, ceftizoxime sodium, levofloxacin and azithromycin, respectively. Venous blood of patients was collected. White blood cells (WBC) of venous blood were detected using a hematology analyzer and C-reactive protein (CRP) was tested with latex immunoturbidimetry. Moreover, therapeutic effects and drug costs of four different antibiotics were compared. No adverse reactions occurred to patients in the four groups during the treatment process. The value at each time point after treatment was significantly decreased compared with that at the previous time point before treatment within the group (P<0.01). The treatment expenses of patients in Group A, Group B and Group D were significantly increased compared with those in Group C (P<0.01), the treatment expenses of patients in Group B and Group D were significantly increased compared with those in Group A (P<0.01) and the treatment expenses of patients in Group D were significantly increased compared with those in Group B (P<0.01). Ceftriaxone sodium, ceftizoxime sodium, levofloxacin and azithromycin all have a good antimicrobial efficacy. The treatment condition of LRTI can be dynamically monitored by WBC and CRP which can accurately reflect the progression condition of patients' illness and the treatment effect. In economic terms, the treatment cost of levofloxacin is the lowest; thus, it is worthy of clinical popularization and application.
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.