ReviewCureus2023
Comparison of the Effectiveness of Prolonged Infusion and Intermittent Infusion of Meropenem in Patients With Sepsis: A Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Continuous versus intermittent infusion of β-lactams in patients with sepsis and septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Pooled it
- Comparative efficacy and safety of extended versus continuous infusion of beta-lactam antibiotics for severe infection: a network meta-analysis of randomized trials.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Article
- A Retrospective Analysis of Intravenous Push versus Extended Infusion Meropenem in Critically Ill Patients.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Case Report: Management of a case of multidrug-resistantFrontiers in transplantation · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the clinical effectiveness of prolonged infusion and intermittent infusion of meropenem in patients with sepsis. This meta-analysis was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were searched without any language or time restrictions, up to September 25, 2023. The primary outcomes assessed in this meta-analysis included clinical success and all-cause mortality. Other outcomes assessed in this study encompassed the mean length of ICU stay. Total eight studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled analysis showed that the clinical success rate was significantly higher in patients receiving prolonged infusion of meropenem compared to intermittent infusion (RR: 1.49, 95% CI: 1.30 to 1.70). All-cause mortality was 24% significantly lower in patients receiving prolonged infusion of meropenem compared to intermittent infusion (RR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.60 to 0.96). The results suggest that prolonged infusion of meropenem could be a more effective and efficient treatment for sepsis patients. However, more randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings and to establish the optimal dosing and administration schedule for prolonged infusion of meropenem.
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.