SynthesisMedicine2019
Continuous versus intermittent infusions of antibiotics for the treatment of infectious diseases: Meta-analysis and systematic review.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Continuous versus intermittent infusion of β-lactams in patients with sepsis and septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Pooled it
- Guideline
- Prolonged versus intermittent β-lactam infusion in sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Annals of intensive care · 2024Review
- Continuous Versus Intermittent Linezolid Infusion for Critically Ill Patients with Hospital-Acquired and Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia: Efficacy and Safety Challenges.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Surviving Sepsis Campaign: Research Opportunities for Infection and Blood Purification Therapies.Critical care explorations · 2021Review
- Population pharmacokinetic analysis of doripenem for Japanese patients in intensive care unit.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Optimizing Antibiotic Treatment Strategies for Neonates and Children: Does Implementing Extended or Prolonged Infusion Provide any Advantage?Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Article
- Prolonged versus intermittent β-lactam antibiotics intravenous infusion strategy in sepsis or septic shock patients: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized trials.Journal of intensive care · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSevere sepsis and pneumonia are common problems in the intensive care units (ICUs) and cause high morbidity and mortality. Optimal doses and appropriate routes of antibiotics are critical to improve their efficacy, but their appropriate routes remain controversial.
objectiveThe efficacy of antibiotic administration among critically ill patient populations remains controversial. Therefore, the present meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effectiveness of antibiotic administration in patients with infection and to assess whether the effect differs between the two antibiotic administration types.
methodsA systematic search of studies on continuous infusions of intravenous antibiotics and traditional intermittent infusions of antibiotics for patients with infection was performed mainly in PubMed. The odds ratios (ORs) of the microbiological results as primary outcome and mortality rate, length of stay, and duration of antibiotic treatment as secondary outcomes were evaluated.
resultsThe meta-analysis comprised 9 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 4 retrospective studies comprising 1957 participants. Current analysis showed that the overall OR of clinical success between the continuous and intermittent groups was 0.675 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.523-0.870). Comparing continuous and intermittent groups, the subgroup analysis showed a lower ICU stay (OR 0.834, 95% CI: 0.542-1.282), a higher mortality (OR 1.433, 95% CI: 1.139-1.801), and a longer antibiotic duration (OR 1.055, 95% CI: 0.659-1.689), but the results of present meta-analysis were not significant because of the limited number of enrolled trials. LIMITATIONS: Heterogeneity of included trials and studies.
conclusionsThe results of present meta-analysis were insufficient to recommend continuous infusion of intravenous antibiotics better than traditional intermittent infusions of antibiotics at routine clinical care. Hope large-scale RCT to provide more rebuts evidence for making recommendations to warrant continuous infusions of intravenous antibiotics at clinical practice.
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.