ArticleEuropean clinical respiratory journal2026
Treatment management of patients with lung abscess: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in European clinical respiratory journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Lung abscesses (LAs) are severe respiratory infections characterised by necrosis of pulmonary tissue. Despite the need for long-term antibiotic treatment, evidence on optimal treatment is limited, and no international guidelines exist. We aimed to evaluate different treatment strategies for treating LAs. Methods: Patients hospitalised from 2016 to 2021 with LA were included in a retrospective multicentre cohort study. Descriptive statistics were presented for the current treatment strategies of LA regarding the choice and duration of antibiotic treatment, as well as the use of interventional treatments and associated treatment outcomes. Results: In 222 patients diagnosed with LA, 89.2% were treated with intravenous antibiotics for a median duration of 14 days, followed by oral antibiotics for a median of 26 days; 10.8% received oral antibiotics as first-line therapy. Duration of intravenous treatment, total length of antibiotic treatment, and occurrence of treatment failure did not differ across the four most used antibiotic regimens: Benzylpenicillin and metronidazole, piperacillin/tazobactam with or without metronidazole, cefuroxime and metronidazole, or clindamycin monotherapy. Duration of hospitalisation varied slightly between treatment groups, with a trend of the shortest length of stay for patients treated with clindamycin. Fifteen patients underwent interventional treatment. These patients were characterised by larger abscesses, longer duration of antibiotic treatment, and higher mortality. Conclusions: Within the limitations of a descriptive design, no significant differences in clinical outcomes of LA were observed across the four most common antibiotic regimens. The selection of regimens varied considerably between the four study sites. Randomised studies are urgently needed to guide the best treatment choice.
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.