ReviewDrugs1987
Cephalosporins in the treatment of meningitis.
Review in Drugs, 1987. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 56 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Edema and tetraparesis in a miniature pig after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation.Comparative medicine · 2012Article
- Spectrofluorimetric protocol for ceftriaxone in commercial formulation and human plasma after condensation with formaldehyde and ethyl acetoacetate.Journal of fluorescence · 2011Article
- Review
- Cephalosporin utilisation review and evaluation.PharmacoEconomics · 1995Review
- Bacterial meningitis: mechanisms of disease and therapy.European journal of pediatrics · 1995Review
- Therapy of experimental meningitis due to Salmonella enteritidis.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 1992Article
- Review
- Review
- Side effects of cephalosporins.Drugs · 1987Review
- Review
- Microbiological investigation of cephalosporins.Drugs · 1987Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The synthesis of new cephalosporin antibiotics has provided agents which can effectively be used to treat most of the different forms of meningitis. None of the first generation cephalosporins can be considered acceptable as agents to treat meningitis. Cefuroxime can be used to treat meningitis due to Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae and Neisseria meningitidis in children. Agents such as cefotaxime and ceftriaxone are appropriate for neonatal meningitis due to Escherichia coli and group B streptococci, but not Listeria monocytogenes. Cefotaxime, ceftriaxone, ceftizoxime and ceftazidime have all proved effective as therapy of meningitis in children and adults when the pathogens are pneumococci, H. influenzae or N. meningitidis, but they have not been shown to yield an improved mortality or lower morbidity in spite of much greater cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) bactericidal titres. Cefotaxime, ceftizoxime, ceftriaxone and ceftazidime have been effective as therapy of meningitis due to E. coli, K. pneumoniae and Proteus species, but failures have occurred with all of the cephalosporins when used to treat meningitis due to Enterobacter spp. and Serratia marcescens. Only ceftazidime yields adequate CSF concentrations to treat meningitis due to Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Overall, the cephalosporins can now be considered a major component of the therapy of acute bacterial meningitis irrespective of the age group to be treated.
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.