ReviewAnnals of intensive care2024
Prolonged versus intermittent β-lactam infusion in sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Review in Annals of intensive care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- [S3 guideline on sepsis-prevention, diagnosis, therapy, and follow-up care-update 2025].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2025Guideline
- 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
- Continuous vs. intermittent meropenem infusion in critically ill patients with sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with trial sequential analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Challenges and opportunities in the management of severe pneumonia. Key concepts from the Seventh Annual Meeting of Spanish Experts 2025.Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2026Review
- CEFEPIME/ENMETAZOBACTAM: Physicochemical Stability of a Novel β-Lactam/β-Lactamase Inhibitor Combination in Syringes and Elastomeric Devices.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Modeling of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic parameters in regular intermittent intravenous infusion and translational application of the models in personalized antibiotics dosing.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Article
- Short, extended and continuous infusion of β-lactams: predicted impact on target attainment and risk for toxicity in an ICU patient cohort.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2025Article
- An investigation of broad-spectrum antibiotic-induced liver injury based on the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System and retrospective observational study.Scientific reports · 2024Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe two latest studies on prolonged versus intermittent use of β-lactam antibiotics in patients with sepsis did not reach consistent conclusions, further contributing to the controversy surrounding the effectiveness of the prolonged β-lactam antibiotics infusion strategy. We conducted a systemic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of prolonged and intermittent β-lactam infusion in adult patients with sepsis.
methodsWe systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases for original randomized controlled trials comparing prolonged and intermittent β-lactam infusion in sepsis patients. A random-effects model was used to evaluate mortality, clinical success, microbiological success, and adverse events. We also conducted subgroup analyses to explore the impact of various factors on the mortality rates. Relative risk (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to calculate the overall effect sizes for dichotomous outcomes. This meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023463905).
resultsWe assessed 15 studies involving 2130 patients. In our comprehensive assessment, we found a significant reduction in all-cause mortality (RR, 0.83; 95% CI 0.72-0.97; P = 0.02) and a notable improvement in clinical success (RR, 1.16; 95% CI 1.03-1.31; P = 0.02) in the prolonged infusion group compared to the intermittent infusion group, whereas microbiological success did not yield statistically significant results (RR, 1.10; 95% CI 0.98-1.23; P = 0.11). No significant differences in adverse events were observed between the two groups (RR, 0.91; 95% CI 0.64-1.29; P = 0.60). Additionally, remarkable conclusions were drawn from subgroup analyses including studies with sample sizes exceeding 20 individuals per group (RR, 0.84; 95%CI 0.72-0.98; P = 0.03), research conducted post-2010 (RR, 0.84; 95%CI 0.72-0.98; P = 0.03), cases involving infections predominantly caused by Gram-negative bacteria (RR, 0.81; 95%CI 0.68-0.96; P = 0.02), as well as the administration of a loading dose (RR, 0.84; 95% CI 0.72-0.97; P = 0.02) and the use of penicillin (RR, 0.61; 95% CI 0.38-0.98; P = 0.04).
conclusionsCompared to intermittent infusion, prolonged infusion of β-lactam antibiotics significantly decreases all-cause mortality among patients with sepsis and enhances clinical success without increasing adverse events.
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.