ArticleBMC infectious diseases2024
Effectiveness of traditional non-carbapenem β-lactams vs. novel β-lactams for the treatment of carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2024. 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.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe World Health Organization (WHO) has identified carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (CRPA) as one of the three critical priority pathogens. There is scarce literature evaluating the treatment outcomes in patients with CRPA infections treated with traditional non-carbapenem β-lactam (NCBL) agents. Thus, this study aims to assess the effectiveness of traditional NCBL compared to novel β-lactam agents (NVL) for treating non-carbapenem β-lactam -susceptible CRPA.
methodsA single-center retrospective cohort study was conducted between January 2016 and December 2022. The study included adult patients 18 years and older with infection due to CRPA who were treated based on microbiology sensitivity with traditional NCBL or NVL for more than 48 h. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality.
results124 patients were included: 98 (79%) in the NCBL group and 26 (20.9%) in the NVL group. 78 (62.9%) patients were male. The median (interquartile range (IQR)) age of included patients was 64 (45, 77) years. A total of 84 (67.7%) patients were critically ill, with an overall median (IQR) APACHE II score of 18 (13.5, 23). The rates of 30-day mortality in NCBL and NVL groups were 41 (41.8%) and 12 (46.2%), respectively; P = 0.692.
conclusionIn patients with CRPA infections susceptible to traditional NCBL, there was no statisticallly significant difference in 30-day mortality among patients who were treated with traditional NCBL compared with NVL. Further studies with larger sample sizes are needed to confirm these findings.
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.