Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31049869›Full record

ReviewClinical pharmacokinetics2019

Clinical Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Eravacycline.

Matthew W McCarthy

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical pharmacokinetics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Microbiology spectrum · 2023
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2021
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Mechanism of Eravacycline Resistance in ClinicalFrontiers in microbiology · 2020
    Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Matthew W McCarthyWeill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. mwm9004@med.cornell.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3453-935X
Cornell University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

On 27 August, 2018, the US Food and Drug Administration approved eravacycline, a fluorocycline antimicrobial agent within the tetracycline class of antibacterial drugs, for the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections in patients aged 18 years and older. This decision was based on substantial clinical and pre-clinical data, including rigorous pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic work. This paper examines the in-vivo pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic work that led to the approval of eravacycline and explores how this important new antibiotic may be used to treat aggressive multidrug-resistant infections in the years ahead.

Indexed as

Administration, IntravenousAdultAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsDrug InteractionsDrug Resistance, MultipleHumansIntraabdominal InfectionsMiceMicrobial Sensitivity TestsModels, AnimalRabbitsTetracyclinesAnti-Bacterial AgentseravacyclineTetracyclines

Identifiers

PMID31049869
OpenAlexW2942968826

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.