ArticleBMC infectious diseases2025
Efficacy of cefoperazone-sulbactam as a component of combination therapy for carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii bloodstream infection in intensive care units: a multicenter retrospective propensity score-matched study.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Intrathecal combined with intravenous eravacycline for the treatment of multisite carbapenem-resistantFrontiers in medicine · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn this study, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of cefoperazone-sulbactam-containing (CSC) combination therapy for carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB) bloodstream infections (BSI) patients in intensive care unit (ICU).
methodsThis multicenter, retrospective cohort study initially included 407 patients with CRAB BSI in the ICU between 2015 and 2019. Patients were divided into the CSC- and non-cefoperazone-sulbactam-containing (NCSC) groups. Outcomes including mortality, clinical failure, and microbiological eradication were compared after time-window bias adjustment and propensity score matching.
resultsThere was no statistical difference in baseline characteristics and disease severity between the CSC (n = 50) and NCSC groups (n = 150) after propensity score matching. The CSC group had significantly lower rates of all-cause mortality (30.0% vs. 50.0%, p = 0.014) and clinical failure (32.0% vs. 52.0%, p = 0.015) on day 28 than the NCSC group. The CSC regimen was an independent protective factor against 28-day clinical failure (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 0.281, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.091-0.864, p = 0.027). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that the CSC group had a significantly longer survival time than the NCSC group (log-rank test, p = 0.028). The subgroup analysis of clinical factors associated with 28-day mortality showed that female patients and those with body mass index > 25, non-smoker status, and C-reactive protein < 30 especially favored the CSC regimen instead of the NCSC regimen.
conclusionsAs an alternative to ampicillin-sulbactam, cefoperazone-sulbactam could be considered as components of combination therapy for critically ill patients with CRAB BSI.
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.