ArticleInfection and drug resistance2025
Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Omadacycline Versus Tigecycline in Treating Severe Pneumonia Caused by Carbapenem-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacilli: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Infection and drug 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.
- Interpretable machine learning identifies immune-inflammatory and immunothrombotic biomarkers for myocardial injury and mortality risk stratification in severe pneumonia with diverse infectious etiologies.Frontiers in cellular and infection 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of intravenous omadacycline compared to intravenous tigecycline in patients with severe pneumonia caused by carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacilli (CRGNB), and to explore the factors influencing 28-day all-cause mortality. Methods: Our retrospective analysis was conducted on adult patients with CRGNB-associated severe pneumonia who received intravenous omadacycline or tigecycline for at least 72 hours in the intensive care unit (ICU) between April 1, 2023, and March 31, 2025. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality, while secondary endpoints included clinical efficacy and microbiological clearance rates. Safety was also assessed. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with 28-day all-cause mortality. Results: A total of 80 patients with CRGNB-associated severe pneumonia were enrolled, including 43 in the omadacycline group and 37 in the tigecycline group. Compared with the tigecycline group, there was no statistically significant difference in 28-day mortality (χ Conclusion: Our study found that omadacycline is comparable to tigecycline in clinical effectiveness for the treatment of CRGNB-associated severe pneumonia, while exhibiting a better safety profile. Novel tetracyclines may be used in combination with β-lactams for the treatment of severe pneumonia caused by CRGNB.
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.