ArticleBMC medicine2025
Clinical outcomes of flomoxef versus cefmetazole in hospitalized patients with urinary tract infections: combined retrospective analyses of two real-world databases and in vitro data.
Article in BMC medicine, 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.
- Clinical Outcomes of Single-Dose Flomoxef Prophylaxis for Transrectal Prostate Biopsy: A Single-Center Study of 834 Cases.International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association · 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFlomoxef and cefmetazole have been reported to be effective against broad-spectrum β-lactamase-producing bacteria and have gained attention as a potential alternative to carbapenems. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of these two drugs in treating urinary tract infection (UTI) by integrating in vitro data and two real-world databases.
methodsThe susceptibility rates of third-generation cephalosporin-resistant Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae to flomoxef and cefmetazole were compared using comprehensive national antimicrobial resistance surveillance data. Combined antimicrobial activities against an extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing multidrug-resistant bacterial strain were tested by diagonal measurement of n-way drug interactions. The effectiveness of the two drugs in treating UTIs was compared using hospital stay duration data obtained from the Japan Medical Data Center (JMDC) Claims Database.
resultsThird-generation cephalosporin-resistant E. coli and K. pneumoniae, including ESBL-producing strains, were similarly susceptible to flomoxef and cefmetazole. In vitro assessment against an ESBL-producing multidrug-resistant strain revealed similar antimicrobial interaction patterns. JMDC Claims data analysis showed that the median hospital stay was 11 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 11-11) and 4 (95% CI: 3-5) days in the cefmetazole and flomoxef groups, respectively (log-rank test, P < 0.001). Moreover, the flomoxef group demonstrated a significantly lower frequency of adverse events such as C. difficile infection and renal failure.
conclusionsThe effectiveness of flomoxef is comparable to that of cefmetazole in treating UTIs without major complications. Thus, flomoxef is a viable treatment option for UTIs in locales with a high prevalence of ESBL-producing strains.
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.