ArticleBMC infectious diseases2025
Beta-lactam plus macrolide treatment versus beta-lactam monotherapy for community-acquired pneumonia: a propensity score analysis using data from a multicenter prospective cohort study.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2025. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCommunity-acquired pneumonia (CAP) substantially contributes to mortality and morbidity globally, with beta-lactams being a primary therapeutic agent. The efficacy of adding macrolides to beta-lactams in CAP treatment remains controversial. Here, we evaluated whether beta-lactam plus macrolide treatment (BLM) is more effective than beta-lactam monotherapy (BL) for preventing CAP mortality.
methodsWe performed a secondary data analysis of a multicenter prospective cohort study involving patients diagnosed with CAP at four institutions. We selected patients treated with either BLM or BL. The primary endpoint was the outcome at the end of the observation period (death or recovery). The secondary endpoints were the length of hospital stay and duration of antibiotic use. Multiple imputations with bootstrapping were used to address missing data. Background characteristics were adjusted via propensity score matching.
resultsOf the 3,470 patients initially included in the study, 2,784 were analyzed; 306 received BLM and 2,478 received BL. The average observation period for the groups was 17.0 (± 18.4) and 24.0 days (± 24.6), respectively. After propensity score matching, mortality was similar between the groups (5.06% for BLM vs. 4.98% for BL; difference 0.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] − 3.73 to 3.71), as were recovery rates (91.79% for BLM vs. 91.69% for BL; difference 0.00, 95% CI − 4.48 to 4.82). In the subgroup analysis of patients with severe CAP, mortality was 12.00% for BLM vs. 13.33% for BL (difference 0.00, 95% CI − 20.00 to 16.13), and recovery rates were 82.86% vs. 83.33% (difference 0.00, 95% CI − 20.00 to 20.00).
conclusionSimilar outcomes were observed in the mortality and recovery rates between the BLM and BL groups among patients with CAP. Clinicians should thoughtfully weigh the benefits of BLM against the potential risks, including adverse effects and antimicrobial resistance, when managing patients with CAP.
trial registrationThis study protocol was registered with the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN-CTR), identifier UMIN000006909, on December 19, 2011.
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.