ArticlePloS one2024
To treat or not to treat: Assessing the role of anti-enterococcal therapy for intra-abdominal infections in patients with cancer.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical efficacy and safety of eravacycline for the treatment of enterococcal infections: a subpopulation analysis.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The clinical significance of enterococci in intra-abdominal infections, particularly those caused by multiple organisms, remains unclear. There are no definitive guidelines regarding the use of empiric therapy with antimicrobial agents targeting enterococci. In this study, we evaluated the impact of the initial antimicrobial therapy administration of anti-enterococcal agents on the treatment of intra-abdominal infections in patients with cancer in whom enterococci were isolated from ascitic fluid cultures. This retrospective study was conducted at Shizuoka Cancer Center between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2020, on all adult patients with cancer with enterococci in their ascitic fluid cultures. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and the secondary outcomes were composite outcomes consisting of three components (mortality, recurrence, and treatment failure) and the risk factors associated with all-cause mortality and composite outcomes. In total, 103 patients were included: 61 received treatment covering enterococci, and 42 did not. The mortality rates did not differ significantly between the treated and untreated groups (treated: 8/61 [13.1%]; untreated: 5/42 [11.9%]; p = 1.00). Additionally, no significant difference was observed between the groups in terms of composite outcomes (treated group: 11/61 [18.0%]; untreated group: 9/42 [21.4%]; p = 0.80). Multivariate analysis showed that performance status (PS2-4; p < 0.0001) was an independent risk factor for mortality. The composite outcome was also significantly higher for PS2-4 (p = 0.007). Anti-enterococcal treatment was not associated with mortality or the composite outcome. In patients with cancer and intra-abdominal infections caused by enterococci, anti-enterococcal therapy was not associated with prognosis, whereas PS2 or higher was associated with prognosis. The results of this study suggest that the initial routine administration of anti-enterococcal agents for intra-abdominal infections may not be essential for all patients with cancer. To substantiate these findings, validation by a prospective randomized trial is warranted.
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.