ArticleJAC-antimicrobial resistance2025
Comparative
Article in JAC-antimicrobial resistance, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Resistance ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical use of ampicillin-sulbactam/ceftazidime-avibactam combination therapy for carbapenem-resistantAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2026Article
- ConsistentAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2026Article
- Sulbactam-Durlobactam in the Treatment of Multidrug-ResistantAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Predictors of clinical outcomes in Chinese patients with carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacterial infections receiving colistimethate sodium: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- [Beta-lactams and beta-lactamase inhibitors-current developments].Innere Medizin (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To determine the Methods: Standardized susceptibility testing by broth microdilution was performed to determine MICs for imipenem, meropenem and sulbactam alone, and for combinations including sulbactam/avibactam, sulbactam/durlobactam, sulbactam/avibactam/meropenem, sulbactam/avibactam/imipenem, sulbactam/durlobactacm/meropenem and sulbactam/durlobactam/imipenem. Whole-genome sequencing was also performed to compare MICs to key resistance determinants, including mutations in penicillin-binding proteins (PBPs). Results: Median sulbactam/durlobactam and sulbactam/avibactam MICs were 2 and 16 mg/L, respectively. Imipenem potentiated the Conclusions: These data show that imipenem potentiates sulbactam-based combinations to a greater extent than meropenem; however, future studies are needed to define how these data should be applied in clinical practice.
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.