ReviewTherapeutic advances in infectious disease
Comparative effectiveness of cefazolin versus antistaphylococcal penicillins in methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus infective endocarditis: a systematic review of observational studies.
Review in Therapeutic advances in infectious disease. 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.
- Cefazolin Versus Antistaphylococcal Penicillins in Methicillin-SusceptibleAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Methicillin-susceptible Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of cefazolin compared with ASPs in adult patients with MSSA infective endocarditis. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources and methods: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Scopus, and Web of Science up to 2024. We included cohort studies and non-randomized trials comparing cefazolin and ASPs in adult patients with MSSA IE. Risk of bias was evaluated using the ROBINS-I tool. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models to estimate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and standardized mean differences (SMDs). Results: Seven cohort studies involving 1685 patients (305 cefazolin; 1380 ASPs) were included. Thirty-day mortality, reported in two studies ( Conclusion: Cefazolin demonstrated comparable efficacy to ASPs for the treatment of MSSA IE, with a potential reduction in short-term mortality and a favorable safety profile. These findings support cefazolin as a viable therapeutic alternative, but randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm its effectiveness and safety. Trial registration: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42024593515.
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.