ReviewDrugs1987
Treatment of respiratory tract infections with cephalosporin antibiotics.
Review in Drugs, 1987. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of temafloxacin versus those of amoxicillin in hospitalized adults with community-acquired pneumonia.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 1992Trial
- In vivo efficacy of a broad-spectrum cephalosporin, ceftriaxone, against penicillin-susceptible and -resistant strains of Streptococcus pneumoniae in a mouse pneumonia model.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 1994Article
- Cost-effectiveness opportunities for new antibiotics.PharmacoEconomics · 1994Article
- Cefetamet pivoxil. A review of its antibacterial activity, pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic use.Drugs · 1993Review
- Review
- Cephalosporins in gram-positive infections.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
Infections of the respiratory tract are among the most common causes for antibiotic prescribing. Their diagnosis within the community is generally limited to clinical criteria, and microbiological information is frequently lacking. Hospitalised patients with respiratory tract infections are more likely to undergo diagnostic sampling, but difficulties remain in reliably defining a microbial aetiology, thereby providing a confident basis for antibiotic selection. In considering the role of the cephalosporins in the treatment of respiratory tract infections, over 500 published articles have been reviewed. The pharmacokinetic considerations are discussed and the limitations of existing methodology are emphasised. Individual agents are reviewed by site of sepsis and conclusions are drawn from both comparative and non-comparative studies and in relation to currently recommended regimens. Although oral cephalosporins are widely used to treat upper respiratory tract infections, none is considered ideal, especially where Haemophilus influenzae is pathogenic. In the case of lower respiratory tract infections the beta-lactamase stable parenteral cephalosporins have become widely used to treat pneumonia in hospitalised patients, especially where Gram-negative enteric bacilli are of aetiological importance. However, the lack of activity of these drugs against Legionella spp., Mycoplasma pneumoniae and Coxiella burnetii must be emphasised. Another area of increasing use is in the treatment of infective exacerbations in patients suffering from cystic fibrosis of the lungs where Pseudomonas aeruginosa is pathogenic; ceftazidime in particular has proved a useful alternative to earlier antipseudomonal penicillin antibiotics.
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.