ArticleInfectious diseases and therapy2019
Cefazolin Versus Anti-Staphylococcal Penicillins for the Treatment of Patients with Methicillin-Susceptible Staphylococcus aureus Infection: A Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis.
Article in Infectious diseases and therapy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cefazolin Versus Antistaphylococcal Penicillins in Methicillin-SusceptibleAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Cefazolin Versus Flucloxacillin for Methicillin-SusceptibleAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Observational
- Synergistic treatment of linoleic acid and cefazolin onApplied and environmental microbiology · 2025Article
- Successful clearance of persistentASM case reports · 2025Article
- Impact of obesity on clinical outcomes of methicillin-susceptibleAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2024Article
- Adverse Events Comparison of Double Beta-Lactam Combinations for Bloodstream Infections: Ampicillin plus Ceftriaxone and Ampicillin/Cloxacillin.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Heartbreaking Decisions: The Dogma and Uncertainties of Antimicrobial Therapy in Infective Endocarditis.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- The Relationship Between Antibiotic Agent and Mortality in Patients With Febrile Neutropenia due to Staphylococcal Bloodstream Infection: A Multicenter Cohort Study.Open forum infectious diseases · 2022Article
- Pharmacokinetic Evaluation of Cefazolin in the Cerebrospinal Fluid of Critically Ill Patients.Open forum infectious diseases · 2022Article
- Pre-surgical Nasal Decolonization ofOntario health technology assessment series · 2022Review
- The Cost-effectiveness of Cefazolin Compared With Antistaphylococcal Penicillins for the Treatment of Methicillin-SensitiveOpen forum infectious diseases · 2021Article
- Comparative effectiveness of cefazolin versus antistaphylococcal penicillins in methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus infective endocarditis: a systematic review of observational studies.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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMethicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) is a common cause of infection in humans. Beta-lactam antibiotics are the preferred agents, with anti-staphylococcal penicillins (ASPs) or the first-generation cephalosporin, cefazolin, favored by clinicians. Recent studies comparing the two strategies suggest similar outcomes between the agents. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to explore differences between cefazolin and ASPs for the treatment of MSSA infections.
methodsWe performed a meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis (TSA) of observational or cohort studies using a random-effects model. Two blinded reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion, risk of bias, and data extraction. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included clinical failure, infection recurrence, and antibiotic discontinuation due to adverse events. Subgroup analyses were conducted for the primary outcome by type of ASP, studies with a high percentage of deep-seated infections, and studies of low to moderate risk of bias.
resultsAfter performing a comprehensive search of the literature, and screening for study inclusion, 19 studies (13,390 patients) were included in the final meta-analysis. Fifteen of the 19 studies (79%) were judged as having a low or moderate risk of bias. Use of cefazolin was associated with lower all-cause mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56-0.91, p = 0.006, I
conclusionThis meta-analysis demonstrated that the use of cefazolin was associated with significant reductions in all-cause mortality, clinical failure, and discontinuation due to adverse events, but was associated with an increased risk of infection recurrence.
fundingUniversity of Florida Open Access Publishing Fund funded the Rapid Service Fees.
trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (study ID: CRD42018106442).
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.