Evidence map›Paper›PMID 3319501›Full record

ReviewDrugs1987

Treatment of respiratory tract infections with cephalosporin antibiotics.

R Finch

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

R FinchCity Hospital, Nottingham.
Nottingham City Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AnimalsCephalosporinsHumansRespiratory Tract InfectionsCephalosporins

Identifiers

PMID3319501
OpenAlexW2038875596

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.