ArticleAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)2019
Definitive Cefazolin Treatment for Community-Onset Enterobacteriaceae Bacteremia Based on the Contemporary CLSI Breakpoint: Clinical Experience of a Medical Center in Southern Taiwan.
Article in Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Female Sex and Mortality in Patients With Gram-Negative Bacteremia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JAMA network open · 2025Pooled it
- Gram-Negative Bloodstream Infection: Implications of Antimicrobial Resistance on Clinical Outcomes and Therapy.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Definitive Cefazolin Therapy for Stabilized Adults with Community-OnsetJournal of clinical medicine · 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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Cefazolin is traditionally active against Escherichia coli, Klebsiella species, and Proteus mirabilis (EKP) isolates. The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) has twice updated cefazolin susceptibility breakpoints for EKP since 2010, but its role in the definitive treatment of cefazolin-susceptible EKP bacteremia remains debated. To assess its efficacy as a definitive agent, the 8-year cohort study consisted of 941 adults with monomicrobial cefazolin-susceptible EKP bacteremia, based on the CLSI criteria issued in 2019, was retrospectively established in a medical center. Based on the definitive antimicrobial prescription, eligible patients were categorized into the cefazolin (399 patients, 42.4%) and broader-spectrum antibiotic (BSA) (542, 57.6%) groups. Initially, fewer proportions of patients with fatal comorbidities (the McCabe classification) and the critical illness (a Pitt bacteremia score ≥4) at the onset and day 3 of the bacteremia episode were found in the cefazolin group, compared to the BSA group. After propensity-score matching, no significant difference of patient proportions between the cefazolin (345 patients) and BSA (345) groups was observed, in terms of the elderly, types and severity of comorbidities, bacteremia severity at the onset and day 3, major bacteremia sources, and the 15-day and 30-day crude mortality. In early outcomes, lengths of time to defervescence, intravenous (IV) antimicrobial administration, and hospitalization were similar in the two matched groups; lower costs of IV antimicrobial administration were observed in the cefazolin group. Notably, for late outcomes, lower proportions of post-treatment infections caused by antimicrobial-resistant pathogens (ARPs) and post-treatment mortality rates were evidenced in the cefazolin group. Conclusively, cefazolin is definitively efficacious and cost-effective for adults with community-onset cefazolin-susceptible EKP bacteremia in this one-center study, compared to BSAs. However, a prospective multicenter study should be conducted for external validation with other communities.
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.