SynthesisBMC infectious diseases2025
Continuous versus intermittent infusion of β-lactams in patients with sepsis and septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC infectious diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Managing sepsis in the era of precision medicine: a narrative review.Acute and critical care · 2026Article
- Duration Matters: Tailoring Antibiotic Therapy for Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess whether continuous infusion of β-lactam antibiotics improves clinical outcomes compared to intermittent infusion in adult patients with sepsis or septic shock.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing continuous versus intermittent β-lactam infusion. Databases searched included PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase. Risk of bias was assessed using the RoB 2.0 tool, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE.
resultsEleven studies involving 9,166 patients were analyzed, comparing continuous versus intermittent infusion of β-lactams in sepsis or septic shock. There was no significant difference in overall mortality (RR 0.94; 95% CI: 0.88-1.01) or ICU mortality (RR 0.94; 95% CI: 0.88-1.01). Continuous infusion was associated with lower hospital mortality (RR 0.92; 95% CI: 0.85-0.99), higher survival at the end of the study (RR 1.04; 95% CI: 1.02-1.07), and higher clinical cure rate (RR 1.42; 95% CI: 1.12-1.80). No significant differences were observed in the length of stay in the ICU (MD 0.75 days; 95% CI: -1.17 to 2.68) or hospital stay (MD -2.51 days; 95% CI: -10.13 to 5.12), or in the adverse events (RR 0.82; 95% CI: 0.60-1.12).
conclusionContinuous infusion of β-lactams could reduce hospital mortality and increase the clinical cure rate in critically ill patients, although its effect on overall mortality, hospital stay, and adverse events remains uncertain. PROSPERO number: CRD42024613938.
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.