ReviewIranian journal of public health2021
Comparing Several Treatments with Antibiotics for Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Iranian journal of public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Identifying the Best Initial Oral Antibiotics for Adults with Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Network Meta-Analysis.Journal of general internal medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Clinical assessment and biomarkers for the detection of bacterial community-acquired pneumonia in children and adults: a protocol for systematic review of diagnostic accuracy.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Antibiotic therapy for bacterial pneumonia.Journal of pharmaceutical health care and sciences · 2024Review
- Comparison between Ceftriaxone and Sulbactam-Ampicillin as Initial Treatment of Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Antibiotics (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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe aimed to review relevant randomized controlled trials to assess the relative clinical effects of antibiotic treatment of patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP).
methodsIn this meta-analysis, we identified relevant studies from PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase using appropriate keywords. Key pertinent sources in the literature were also reviewed and all articles published through Oct 2019 were considered for inclusion. For each study, we assessed the risk ratios (RRs) or mean difference combined with the 95% confidence interval (CI) to assess and synthesize outcomes.
resultsOverall, 36 studies were consistent with the meta-analysis, involving 17,076 patients. There was no significant difference in the mortality after subgroup analysis: individualized treatment vs. standard treatment; β-lactams plus macrolides vs. β-lactam and/or fluoroquinolone; ceftaroline fosamil vs. ceftriaxone; combination therapy vs. monotherapy or high-dose vs. low-dose. The drug-related adverse event incidence was significantly higher in the ceftriaxone group than in the other drug groups (
conclusionThere was a limited number of included studies in the subgroup analysis, but it will still be necessary to conduct more high-quality randomized controlled trials to confirm the clinical efficacy of different antibiotics used to treat CAP.
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.