ArticleDisease markers2022
Antimicrobial Step-Down Therapy versus Conventional Antimicrobial Therapy in the Treatment of Patients with Sepsis.
Article in Disease markers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nano Parthenolide Improves Intestinal Barrier Function of Sepsis by Inhibiting Apoptosis and ROS via 5-HTR2A.International journal of nanomedicine · 2023Article
- Retracted: Antimicrobial Step-Down Therapy versus Conventional Antimicrobial Therapy in the Treatment of Patients with Sepsis.Disease markers · 2023Article
- Risk classification and door-to-antibiotic time in patients with suspected sepsis.Revista latino-americana de enfermagem · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2023-06-21Concerns/Issues about Data · Concerns/Issues about Results and/or Conclusions · Concerns/Issues about Referencing/Attributions · Concerns/Issues about Peer Review · Investigation by Journal/Publisher · Investigation by Third Party · Computer-Aided Content or Computer-Generated Content · Unreliable Results and/or Conclusions · · See also: https://pubpeer.com/publications/A68158EA64A56497D5DEA18541F30E
- Retracted
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study was to evaluate the efficacy of antimicrobial step-down therapy versus conventional antimicrobial therapy in the treatment of patients with sepsis. Methods: Between September 2020 and September 2021, 65 patients with sepsis treated in the intensive care unit (ICU) of our hospital were recruited and assigned at a ratio of 1 : 1 to receive either conventional antimicrobial therapy (sulbactam plus cefoperazone) (control group) or antimicrobial step-down therapy (imipenem/cilastatin) (observation group). The results of drug sensitivity tests and clinical effects were evaluated comprehensively after 3-5 d of treatment, downgraded, and upgraded, or maintenance treatment was administered for 10 d. Outcome measures included clinical and laboratory indices and treatment efficacy. Results: Antimicrobial step-down therapy resulted in a significantly higher efficacy and lower levels of white blood cell (WBC) count and C-reactive protein (CRP) versus conventional antimicrobial therapy ( Conclusion: Antimicrobial step-down therapy contributes to the mitigation of inflammatory responses in patients with sepsis and shortens the duration of antimicrobial drug use and ICU stay versus conventional antimicrobial therapy. The reliability of the conclusions can be further increased if multicenter and large sample clinical observations can be conducted, which is the direction of endeavor for future clinical studies.
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.