SynthesisArchives of dermatological research2024
Efficacy and safety of first- and second-line antibiotics for cellulitis and erysipelas: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Archives of dermatological research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Progress in topical nanoformulations against bacterial skin and soft tissue infections- current trends.Drug delivery and translational research · 2025Review
- Indications and Mechanisms of Action of the Main Treatment Modalities for Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Primary and Recurrent Erysipelas-Epidemiological Patterns in a Single-Centre Retrospective Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study systematically evaluated and ranked the efficacy of first- and second-line antibiotics antibiotic options for the clinical management of cellulitis and erysipelas through a network meta-analysis approach. From inception to July 04, 2024, a search for relevant randomized clinical trials (RCTs) was carried out using several databases. Antibiotics including azithromycin, cefaclor, cephalexin, cloxacillin, erythromycin, cephalexin plus trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, cephalexin plus placebo, flucloxacillin, clindamycin, ceftriaxone, penicillin, roxithromycin, and pristinamycin were assessed regarding cure rate, the eradication of baseline pathogens, diarrhea or vomiting, and rash. In total, 10 RCTs with 1,936 cellulitis or erysipelas patients were eligible for inclusion. There were no significant differences in the cure rates for cellulitis among the antibiotics analysed, with cefaclor demonstrating the most favorable profile for curative outcomes. In terms of side effects, ceftriaxone was identified as the least likely to induce diarrhea or vomiting. For erysipelas, pristinamycin showed the most promising results in achieving cure rates. Although a comparison of the three antibiotics revealed no significant differences in rash as a side effect in erysipelas, pristinamycin was observed to carry the highest risk for rash. Our findings indicate no significant differences in cure rates among antibiotics for cellulitis. However, ceftriaxone had the fewest gastrointestinal side effects. Pristinamycin showed the highest cure rates for erysipelas but with a higher risk of rash. Future research should focus on optimizing antibiotic selection for cellulitis and erysipelas.
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.