ArticleAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Clinical Outcomes and Adverse Effects in Septic Patients with Impaired Renal Function Who Received Different Dosages of Cefoperazone-Sulbactam.
Article in Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness and Safety of High-Dose versus Standard-Dose Cefoperazone-Sulbactam in Severe Infections: A Multicenter Retrospective Study.Infection and drug resistance · 2025Article
- Multi-Drug-Resistant Gram-Negative Microorganisms: Epidemiology, Treatment and Alternative Approach.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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes and adverse effects in septic patients with impaired renal function who received different dosages of cefoperazone-sulbactam (CFP-SUL 1 g/1 g or 2 g/2 g every 12 h). The retrospective study was conducted using the Chang Gung Research Database to include adult patients who had renal insufficiency presented with septicemia caused by Gram-negative organisms and had received CFP-SUL for more than 1 week. A total of 265 patients (44 in the CFP-SUL 1 g/1 g group and 221 in the CFP-SUL 2 g/2 g group) were eligible to be included in this study. After 1:3 propensity score matching, 41 and 123 patients in the CFP-SUL 1 g/1 g and CFP-SUL 2 g/2 g groups, respectively, were included for analyses. There were no significant between-group differences in all-cause mortality rates and adverse effects, including prolonged prothrombin time. A logistic regression model showed that the Pitt bacteremia score was related to all-cause mortality rate and prolonged prothrombin time was associated with renal replacement therapy. The adverse effects of CFP-SUL did not increase in septic patients with impaired renal function receiving CFP-SUL 2 g/2 g Q12H. However, this study may be underpowered to reveal a difference in all-cause mortality.
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.