ArticleVeterinary medicine and science2023
The comparative effects of erythromycin and amikacin on acute respiratory Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection.
Article in Veterinary medicine and science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of erythromycin dosage on clinical outcomes in stable non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis: A randomized controlled trial.Medicine · 2025Trial
- Spiramycin DisarmsAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- The comparative effects of erythromycin and amikacin on acute respiratory Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection.Veterinary medicine and science · 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
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOne of the most common causes of pneumonia is Pseudomonas aeruginosa (P. aeruginosa). As with other microbial pathogens, this bacterium tends to develop resistance to various antibiotics. Amikacin and erythromycin, which are from the aminoglycoside and macrolide antibiotic families, are used to treat respiratory infections caused by P. aeruginosa.
objectivesThis study explored whether amikacin, erythromycin or a combination of both works better against P. aeruginosa acute lung infection.
methodsFor this study, 32 rats were used. The trachea of rats was exposed aseptically and their lung was infected with P. aeruginosa through trachea. Then, according to the group, they received amikacin, erythromycin or a combination of both for 1 week. Finally, they were euthanised on the 3rd and 7th days post-infection. The macroscopic and microscopic evaluations of the lungs, kidney and liver were performed. The right lung was collected for in vivo bacteriological analysis.
resultsThe amikacin group (A group) had a statistically significantly lower macroscopic and microscopic scores than the other groups (p < 0.05). In vivo bacteriological test revealed that the A group had significantly lower lung bacterial load (p < 0.05).
conclusionsIn summary, it was concluded that amikacin could help alleviate the respiratory infection caused by P. aeruginosa solely, and it was more effective than erythromycin.
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.