ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2023
The Clinical Significance of Anaerobic Coverage in the Antibiotic Treatment of Aspiration Pneumonia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Amplicon-based sequencing as a diagnostic tool for severe pneumonia in the ICU.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Oral microbiota and respiratory diseases: advances and perspectives.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2025Review
- Article
- Effectiveness of Ampicillin-Sulbactam Versus Ceftriaxone for the Initial Treatment of Community-Acquired Pneumonia in Older Adults: A Target Trial Emulation Study.Open forum infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Article
- Severe aspiration pneumonia in the elderly.Journal of intensive medicine · 2024Review
- Optimizing Diagnosis and Management of Community-acquired Pneumonia in the Emergency Department.Emergency medicine clinics of North America · 2024Review
- "Diagnose, Treat, and SUPPORT". Clinical competencies in the management of older adults with aspiration pneumonia: a scoping review.European geriatric medicine · 2024Article
- Fever and infections in surgical intensive care: an American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Critical Care Committee clinical consensus document.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2024Article
- Importance of Skeletal Muscle and Interdisciplinary Team Approach in Managing Pneumonia in Older People.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAspiration pneumonia is increasingly recognised as a common condition. While antibiotics covering anaerobes are thought to be necessary based on old studies reporting anaerobes as causative organisms, recent studies suggest that it may not necessarily benefit prognosis, or even be harmful. Clinical practice should be based on current data reflecting the shift in causative bacteria. The aim of this review was to investigate whether anaerobic coverage is recommended in the treatment of aspiration pneumonia.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing antibiotics with and without anaerobic coverage in the treatment of aspiration pneumonia was performed. The main outcome studied was mortality. Additional outcomes were resolution of pneumonia, development of resistant bacteria, length of stay, recurrence, and adverse effects. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed.
resultsFrom an initial 2523 publications, one randomised control trial and two observational studies were selected. The studies did not show a clear benefit of anaerobic coverage. Upon meta-analysis, there was no benefit of anaerobic coverage in improving mortality (Odds ratio 1.23, 95% CI 0.67-2.25). Studies reporting resolution of pneumonia, length of hospital stay, recurrence of pneumonia, and adverse effects showed no benefit of anaerobic coverage. The development of resistant bacteria was not discussed in these studies.
conclusionIn the current review, there are insufficient data to assess the necessity of anaerobic coverage in the antibiotic treatment of aspiration pneumonia. Further studies are needed to determine which cases require anaerobic coverage, if any.
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.