ReviewAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)2020
Intravenous Ceftriaxone Versus Multiple Dosing Regimes of Intravenous Anti-Staphylococcal Antibiotics for Methicillin-Susceptible
Review in Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ceftriaxone for methicillin-susceptibleAnnals of medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Synergistic Antimicrobial Activity of Ceftriaxone andAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Rational Use of Ceftriaxone in Necrotizing Fasciitis and Mortality Associated with Bloodstream Infection and Hemorrhagic Bullous Lesions.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Effectiveness and Safety of Ceftriaxone Compared to Standard of Care for Treatment of Bloodstream Infections Due to Methicillin-SusceptibleAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Coinfections with Bacteria, Fungi, and Respiratory Viruses in Patients with SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMethicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) is a common pathogen associated with a range of clinically important infections. MSSA can cause deep-seated infections requiring prolonged courses of intravenous antibiotic therapy to achieve effective resolution. The move toward ambulatory or outpatient delivery of parenteral antibiotics has led to an increase in the use of ceftriaxone as a pragmatic first choice given its advantageous single daily dosing schedule.
objectiveTo compare the efficacy of once daily ceftriaxone in the treatment of infections due to confirmed or suspected MSSA to multiple dosing regimes of anti-staphylococcal antibiotics.
methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Global Health, PubMed, EMBASE and CINAHL for randomised controlled trials as well as prospective and retrospective cohort studies that compared ceftriaxone to any multiple dosing regime of anti-staphylococcal antibiotics. Outcome measures were the proportion of patients with a resolution of infection based on time after initiation of therapy, adverse reactions, recurrence and duration of hospital admission.
resultsWe included two randomized controlled trials, one prospective observational study and three retrospective cohort studies (643 participants; 246 children, 397 adults). There was no difference in time to resolution of symptoms. The number of adverse reactions, recurrence of bacteraemia and duration of hospital stay were not significantly different between ceftriaxone and other anti-staphylococcal antibiotics.
conclusionsBased on a small number of low-quality studies, ceftriaxone is as effective as multiple dosing regimes for the treatment of infections due MSSA. An appropriately powered randomized trial is required to demonstrate equivalence and cost effectiveness.
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.