ReviewJAC-antimicrobial resistance2022
Indications for the use of metronidazole in the treatment of non-periodontal dental infections: a systematic review.
Review 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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical pharmacokinetics of metronidazole: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2025Pooled it
- Analysis of ESAC-Net/EARS-Net Data from 29 EEA Countries for Spatiotemporal Associations Between Antimicrobial Use and Resistance-Implications for Antimicrobial Stewardship?Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Dental practitioners are the largest prescribers of metronidazole. Antibiotics should only be prescribed when systemic involvement is clear and should be limited to monotherapy with β-lactams in the first instance. Objectives: To determine whether metronidazole used as monotherapy or in addition to a β-lactam antibiotic offers any additional benefit over β-lactam monotherapy in non-periodontal dental infections. Methods: Searches of Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Cochrane library and trials registries, forward and backward citations, for studies published between database inception and 2 August 2021. All randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and non-randomized trials comparing either systemic metronidazole monotherapy or metronidazole combined with a β-lactam with β-lactam monotherapy for the treatment of non-periodontal dental infections in adults or children in outpatient settings were included. Results: Four publications reporting three RCTs comparing metronidazole with a β-lactam antibiotic were recovered. Studies were conducted in the 1970s-80s and aimed to demonstrate metronidazole was as effective as penicillin for the treatment of acute pericoronitis or acute apical infections with systemic involvement. Meta-analysis of results was not possible due to differences in measurement of infection signs. All studies concluded that metronidazole and penicillin are equally effective for the treatment of non-periodontal dental infections with systemic involvement. Conclusions: Metronidazole does not provide superior clinical outcomes (alone or in combination with a β-lactam) when compared with a β-lactam antibiotic alone for the treatment of non-periodontal dental infections in general dental practice. Guidelines should reinforce the importance of surgical interventions and if appropriate the use of a single agent narrow-spectrum β-lactam.
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.