ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2021
Efficacy of Empiric Antibiotic Coverage in Community-Acquired Pneumonia Associated with Each Atypical Bacteria: A Meta-Analysis.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of initial empirical antibiotic regimens in severe community-acquired pneumonia: a network meta-analysis.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2025Article
- Doxycycline vs. macrolides in combination with a β-lactam antibiotic for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia in inpatients.European journal of medical research · 2022Article
- Atypical Pathogens in Adult Community-Acquired Pneumonia and Implications for Empiric Antibiotic Treatment: A Narrative Review.Microorganisms · 2022Review
- The effect of erythromycin and clarithromycin versus azithromycin on serum valproate concentration.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 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
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The benefit of empiric coverage for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) for atypical bacteria is controversial. This meta-analysis purpose was to compare the clinical failure rate between adults who empirically received atypical coverage versus those who did not. We searched PubMed and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), comparing the clinical failure rate of CAP associated with individual atypical bacteria between adults who received empiric atypical coverage versus those who did not. Risk differences (RDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects models. Eight double-blind RCTs (65 patients with
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.