ReviewDrugs1987
Microbiological investigation of cephalosporins.
Review in Drugs, 1987. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prophylaxis with oral cefadroxil versus intravenous cefuroxime in trochanteric fracture surgery. A clinical multicentre study.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 1995Trial
- Randomised double-blind study of norfloxacin and cefadroxil in the treatment of acute pyelonephritis.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 1990Trial
- Subinhibitory antimicrobial concentrations: A review of in vitro and in vivo data.The Canadian journal of infectious diseases = Journal canadien des maladies infectieuses · 1992Article
- Review
- Cephalosporins in gram-positive infections.Drugs · 1987Review
- Review
- Review
- Cephalosporins 1945-1986.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 most important role of the clinical microbiology laboratory is to advise clinicians in their choice of antimicrobial therapy. While the application of modern laboratory techniques is enabling sensitivity testing to cephalosporins to be performed with increasing precision, the ability to predict accurately clinical efficacy has not improved in parallel. For the cephem group in particular, the present confusion as to the numerical value of breakpoints and their interpretation, and the overuse of 'class testing' are making the task of the clinical microbiologist more difficult. For most purposes, simple disc sensitivity testing of cephems gives sufficient information, and it is simple to carry out, as no special media or growth conditions are required. Further studies are required to answer an outstanding question of great importance, namely, what the clinical prognostic significance is of results of sensitivity testing of 'methicillin-resistant' Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococci, as these organisms often appear sensitive to cephems in vitro. For the research worker, the cephems provide tools of almost unrivalled power in the investigation of such microbiologically important topics as cell wall synthesis, bacteriolysis, membrane function and various aspects of enzyme regulation and inhibition. Relatively minor changes in the structure of cephem molecules can markedly affect their binding to bacteria, thus allowing probing of the functions of the individual penicillin-binding proteins. In Gram-negative bacteria, membrane function can be selectively changed by the action of subinhibitory concentrations of cephems, as it is intimately connected to the integrity of the peptidoglycan moiety. Induction and derepression of beta-lactamases may be responsible for a new type of bacterial resistance.
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.