Comparison of early treatment with ceftolozane/tazobactam versus polymyxin-based therapy of pneumonia due to MDR

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.

1. Global epidemiology of carbapenem-resistantJAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2026
   Review
2. Ceftazidime-avibactam as monotherapy or in combination for targeted treatment of KPC-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae infections in ICUs: a comparative analysis through counterfactual framework and desirability of outcome ranking.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026
   Observational
3. A patient-centric paradigm and tool for clinical research: the DOOR is open.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2026
   Article

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

Abstract

Indexed as