ArticlePloS one2022
A retrospective review of oral cephalosporins versus fluoroquinolones for the treatment of pyelonephritis.
Article in PloS one, 2022. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prioritizing cefuroxime as empirical treatment in acute bacterial prostatitis: patient characteristics and outcome.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2026Article
- A Systematic Literature Review of the Epidemiology of Complicated Urinary Tract Infection.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2025Review
- Intravenous cefuroxime as a first-line treatment for women hospitalized for pyelonephritis.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2024Article
- Rise of the beta-lactams: a retrospective, comparative cohort of oral beta-lactam antibiotics as step-down therapy for hospitalized adults with acute pyelonephritis.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe current Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines for the treatment of acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis (AUP) advise caution when using oral beta-lactams due to concern for potentially inferior efficacy compared to fluoroquinolones (FQs) and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole; however, studies specifically evaluating the efficacy of oral cephalosporins (CPs) in AUP are limited.
objectiveTo assess the safety and efficacy of oral CPs versus FQs for the treatment of AUP. DESIGN, SETTING AND
participantsThis is a retrospective, chart review study conducted at a single-center, tertiary care hospital. MEASUREMENTS: The primary endpoint was treatment failure within 30 days, defined as a change in antibiotic or return to ED or clinic due to persistent symptoms. Secondary endpoints included adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and C. difficile infection (CDI) within 30 days.
resultsOf the 343 patients included in the study, treatment failure occurred in 54/338 (16.0%) patients and was similar between oral CPs and FQs (35/229 [15.3%] vs. 19/109 [17.4%]). A higher percentage of treatment failures were observed for third generation (3GC) and first generation (1GC) CPs compared to second generation CPs (2GC) (3GC: 15/65 [23.4%]; 1GC: 11/49 [22.4%]; 2GC: 9/115 [7.8%]). Documented ADRs were low (6/343 [1.7%]) and no cases of CDI were documented.
conclusionsOral CPs appear to be as safe and effective as FQs for the treatment of AUP. Fewer treatment failures were noted with 2GCs as compared to 3GCs and 1GCs.
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.