SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2025
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.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic review and meta-analysis to identify meropenem exposures and pharmacological targets predictive of clinical outcomes.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2026Pooled it
- Rising Carbapenem MICs and Clinical Dose Optimization: Bridging Resistance Surveillance and Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Strategies.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Comparative efficacy and safety of extended versus continuous infusion of beta-lactam antibiotics for severe infection: a network meta-analysis of randomized trials.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Article
- Analysis of Antibiotic Consumption Trends and Pathogens' Epidemiological Profile Within a Multidisciplinary Clinical Hospital from Romania.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: A recent large multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) found that continuous infusion (CI) of meropenem did not improve clinical outcomes in critically ill patients, contradicting previous meta-analysis results. Methods: We conducted a search of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases up to March 19, 2024. Results: Our study included a total of 1,075 critically ill patients with sepsis from five RCTs. The primary outcome indicated that CI of meropenem did not reduce all-cause mortality in patients (RR = 0.89; 95% CI, 0.75-1.04; Conclusion: In critically ill patients with sepsis, CI of meropenem did not reduce mortality but was associated with shorter ICU length of stays, higher clinical cure rates, and shorter duration of meropenem therapy. Further large-scale RCTs are needed to validate these findings. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024528380, identifier CRD42024528380.
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.