ArticleJAC-antimicrobial resistance2022
Article in JAC-antimicrobial resistance, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prevalence of colistin resistance in clinical isolates ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2024Pooled it
- In Vitro Antimicrobial Activity of Ceftobiprole and Comparator Agents AgainstAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Ceftobiprole activity against multidrug-resistantAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2025Article
- Antibiotic Resistance to Molecules Commonly Prescribed for the Treatment of Antibiotic-Resistant Gram-Positive Pathogens: What Is Relevant for the Clinician?Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Safety and Efficacy of a Single Procedure of Extraction and Reimplantation of Infected Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device (CIED) in Comparison with Deferral Timing: An Observational Retrospective Multicentric Study.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate the susceptibility to ceftobiprole of clinical bacterial isolates obtained from hospitalized patients in Europe. Methods: A total of 20 000 non-duplicate bacterial isolates were collected in 2016-19 from patients with documented infections at medical centres located in 17 countries in Europe. Bacterial identification was confirmed and susceptibility to ceftobiprole and comparator agents was tested using the EUCAST broth microdilution methodology and interpretive criteria by a central microbiology laboratory. Results: Of the 20 000 isolates, 10 007 (50.0%) were Gram-positive and 9993 (50.0%) were Gram-negative. The most common species was Conclusions: Ceftobiprole continues to exhibit potent and broad-spectrum activity against Gram-positive and Gram-negative clinical isolates from Europe, and as expected, with a slight north-to-south and west-to-east susceptibility gradient.
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.