ReviewLe infezioni in medicina2023
Fosfomycin for Non-Urinary Tract Infections: a systematic review.
Review in Le infezioni in medicina, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Although fosfomycin is currently approved for treating urinary tract infections, it is increasingly being used as salvage therapy for various infectious syndromes outside the urinary tract. This systematic review evaluates clinical and microbiological cure rates in patients with bacterial infections not restricted to the urinary tract where fosfomycin was used off-label. Materials and Methods: Articles from two databases (Pubmed and Scopus) were reviewed. The dosage, route, and duration of fosfomycin therapy along with the details of adjunctive antimicrobial agents were noted. The final outcomes captured were clinical or microbiological cures. Results: A total of 649 articles, not including duplicates, were selected for the title and abstract screening. After title and abstract screening, 102 articles were kept for full-text screening. Of the 102 articles, 23 studies (n=1227 patients) were kept in the final analysis. Of the 1227 patients, 301 (25%) received fosfomycin as monotherapy, and the remaining 926 75%) received fosfomycin in combination with at least one other antimicrobial agent. Most of the patients received intravenous fosfomycin (n=1046, 85%). Conclusion: Fosfomycin has moderate clinical success in patients with non-urinary tract infections, especially when used with other antimicrobials. Due to the paucity of randomized controlled trials, fosfomycin's use should be limited to situations where no alternatives are supported by better clinical evidence.
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.