ArticleJAC-antimicrobial resistance2025
Aminoglycoside versus β-lactam treatment for urosepsis-a retrospective cohort study.
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 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.
- Renal safety of amikacin compared with ceftriaxone in patients treated for urinary tract infection: an observational cohort study.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Aminoglycosides, once less favoured compared with β-lactams (BLs) for treating urinary tract infections (UTIs), have gained attention due to the rising prevalence of ESBL-producing Enterobacterales. However, comparative data on the efficacy and safety of aminoglycosides versus BLs are limited. Methods: We retrospectively compared patients with Gram-negative bacteraemic UTIs, who received monotherapy with aminoglycosides or BLs for at least 3 days. The primary outcome was clinical improvement at 72 h. Secondary outcomes included clinical improvement by discharge, time to improvement, mortality, length of stay, relapse rate and kidney injury. Results: Out of 134 patients, 96 received BLs and 38 received aminoglycosides. BL recipients had more comorbidities, renal failure and higher clinical severity of bacteraemia. Clinical improvement for BLs versus aminoglycosides was similar at 72 h (55% versus 65.8%, Conclusions: In this cohort of bacteraemic patients with UTI, aminoglycosides were associated with similar outcomes as BLs, with no significant risk of toxicity. Given their broad Gram-negative coverage and favourable pharmacokinetics, aminoglycosides could be reconsidered as a first-line treatment option for UTIs.
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.