ReviewArchives of medical science : AMS2025
Efficacy and safety of tigecycline doses for ventilator-associated pneumonia caused by multiple resistant bacteria: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Archives of medical science : AMS, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Carbapenemases: epidemiology, detection and management in a changing global landscape.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2026Review
- Multidrug-ResistantAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Development of a Weighted-Incidence Syndromic Combination Antibiogram (WISCA) to guide empiric antibiotic treatment for ventilator-associated pneumonia in a Mexican tertiary care university hospital.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
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
Introduction: Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) caused by multi-resistant bacteria is a serious complication in hospitalized patients. Tigecycline, a broad-spectrum antibiotic, has been suggested as a potential treatment option for this condition, but the optimal dose of tigecycline remains unclear. In this study, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different doses of tigecycline in the treatment of VAP caused by multi-resistant bacteria. Material and methods: To identify relevant studies, we conducted a comprehensive search of multiple databases including the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, the Chinese biomedical literature database, CNKI, Chinese JP, and WP, covering the period up to December 2022. The search strategy was designed to identify studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of different doses of tigecycline in the treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia caused by multi-resistant bacteria. We assessed the quality of the included studies using the Jadad quality score, and performed a meta-analysis of the data using Stata software. Results: Six articles, consisting of a total of 509 patients, were included, with 280 patients in the control group (low-dose tigecycline) and 229 in the observation group (high-dose tigecycline). There was no clinical heterogeneity or statistical heterogeneity between studies ( Conclusions: Duration of high-dose tigecycline treatment for ventilator-related pneumonia caused by multi-resistant bacteria is associated with improved clinical efficacy without an increase in adverse effects. Therefore, it may offer a viable treatment option for patients with ventilator-related pneumonia caused by multi-resistant bacteria.
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.