Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36875177›Full record

ArticleJAC-antimicrobial resistance2023

Kenneth Rolston, Bahgat Gerges, Lior Nesher, Samuel A Shelburne, Randall Prince, Issam Raad

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAC-antimicrobial resistance, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Eravacycline: From broad-spectrum coverage to novel clinical applications.Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2026
    Review
  4. Methicillin-resistantiScience · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Frontiers in microbiology · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Kenneth RolstonDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Infection Control and Employee Health Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcomb Blvd, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Bahgat GergesDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Infection Control and Employee Health Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcomb Blvd, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Lior NesherInfectious Disease Institute, Soroka Medical Center, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheba, Israel.
Samuel A ShelburneDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Infection Control and Employee Health Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcomb Blvd, Houston, TX 77030, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9721-263X
Randall PrinceDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Infection Control and Employee Health Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcomb Blvd, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Issam RaadDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Infection Control and Employee Health Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcomb Blvd, Houston, TX 77030, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1918-1369

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Bacterial infections are common in patients with cancer, and many bacteria have developed resistance to currently used antibiotics. Objectives: We evaluated the Methods: Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed using CLSI-approved methodology and interpretive criteria for 255 Gram-positive and 310 Gram-negative bacteria. MIC and susceptibility percentage were calculated according to CLSI and FDA breakpoints when available. Results: Eravacycline had potent activity against most Gram-positive bacteria, including MRSA. Of 80 Gram-positive isolates with available breakpoints, 74 (92.5%) were susceptible to eravacycline. Eravacycline had potent activity against most Enterobacterales, including ESBL-producing organisms. Of 230 Gram-negative isolates with available breakpoints, 201 (87.4%) were susceptible to eravacycline. Eravacycline had the best activity among comparators against carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales, with 83% susceptibility. Eravacycline was also active against many non-fermenting Gram-negative bacteria, with the lowest MIC Conclusions: Eravacycline was active against many clinically significant bacteria isolated from patients with cancer, including MRSA, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales, and non-fermenting Gram-negative bacilli. Eravacycline might play an important role in the treatment of bacterial infections in patients with cancer, and additional clinical evaluation is warranted.

Identifiers

PMID36875177
PMCPMC9981869

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.