SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2019
Triple Versus Double Therapy for the Treatment of Severe Infections Caused by Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gastroprotective effect of Notoginsenoside R1 On Ethanol-Induced gastric ulcers in Rats via alteration of VEGFR2/ERK and TLR-2/Myd88 signaling pathway.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- Molecular Analysis of Tigecycline Resistance in Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) in Mthatha and Surrounding Hospitals.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- Occurrence and Characteristics of Carbapenem-ResistantPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe role of combination treatment in the management of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae infections (CRE) is still unclear. There have been no meta-analysis comparing the efficiency of triple therapy in treating CRE infections with that of double therapy. In this perspective, we conducted a meta-analysis to clarify whether triple therapy is superior to double therapy in treating patients with CRE infections.
methodsWe performed a systematic review, using PubMed and Embase without any restrictions until October 2019. Risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI were pooled to evaluate the effect of intervention.
resultsA total of 33 studies with 1,441 subjects were identified. Pooled analysis showed that triple therapy was not associated with a reduced mortality compared with double therapy (HR 0.99 95% CI 0.85-1.14, P = 0.85).
conclusionsThis meta-analysis suggests that triple therapy is not superior to double therapy in the treatment of patients with CRE infections, although the quality of evidence is generally low based on current literatures. Future well-defined, randomized controlled trials will be required to elucidate the role of triple therapy in the treatment of CRE infections.
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.