ReviewNew microbes and new infections2025
In vitro susceptibility of
Review in New microbes and new infections, 2025. 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.
- Is it okay to use a commercially available AST forJournal of clinical microbiology · 2026Article
- Human infections caused by pathogenic Burkholderia: current clinical challenges and future perspectives.Infection · 2026Review
- Managing Pneumonia Due to Rare Non-Fermenting Gram-Negative Bacteria: Epidemiology, Risk Factors and Therapeutic Strategies.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Methods: This systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines to assess the in vitro susceptibility of BCC strains to ceftazidime-avibactam. We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase databases. Inclusion criteria required original articles reporting on BCC susceptibility to ceftazidime-avibactam using standard antimicrobial susceptibility testing methods. Results: A total of 9 studies met the inclusion criteria. These studies were conducted between 2010 and 2024, with data from the USA, France, Germany, Belgium, and other countries. The studies used various methods, including agar dilution, broth microdilution, and disc diffusion. The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) range for ceftazidime-avibactam was found to vary, with the combination showing significantly improved susceptibility compared to ceftazidime alone. Conclusion: This systematic review demonstrates that ceftazidime-avibactam significantly enhances the susceptibility of BCC strains, supporting its potential as an effective therapeutic option for BCC infections in CF patients. Further clinical studies are needed to confirm these findings and guide treatment strategies.
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.