SynthesisFrontiers in pediatrics2022
Effectiveness of ertapenem for treatment of infections in children: An evidence mapping and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tackling the outer membrane: facilitating compound entry into Gram-negative bacterial pathogens.npj antimicrobials and resistance · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To assess and summarize current evidence on the effectiveness and safety of ertapenem for treatment of childhood infections, in consideration of high infection prevalence in children and wide use of ertapenem. Methods: The following 8 databases were searched on 13th May 2021: Web of Science, Embase via Ovid SP, PubMed, The Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), Chinese BioMedical Literature Database (CBM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP and Wanfang. The primary outcome was treatment success rate. Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using random-effect models. Subgroup analysis was conducted where heterogeneity was found. Results: Fifteen studies (8 randomized controlled trials, 1 observational comparative study, and 6 before and after studies) involving 2,528 patients were included in the final review. Ertapenem had similar treatment success rates with β-lactam antibiotics [relative risk (RR) = 1.08, 95% CI: 0.99-1.19]. In a subgroup analysis, similar efficacy (RR = 1.08, 95% CI: 0.97-1.20) between ertapenem and other carbapenems. Compared with β-lactam antibiotics, ertapenem did not increase the risk of any adverse events (RR = 1.02, 95%CI: 0.71-1.48), drug-related diarrhea (all non-Asian children, RR = 0.62, 95%CI: 0.31-1.25), or injection site pain (all non-Asian children, RR = 1.66, 95%CI: 0.59-4.68). Subgroup analysis showed no obvious difference between ertapenem group and carbapenems or non-carbapenems group on risk of adverse events. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that ertapenem is effective and safe in treatment for children with infection. Further comparative real-world data is needed to supplement clinical evidence on the overall benefits of ertapenem in this population.
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.