SynthesisAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2026
Effectiveness and safety of meropenem-vaborbactam versus ceftazidime-avibactam in multidrug-resistant Gram-negative infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.
Synthesis in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2026. 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.
- ASP-COMPLEX: redefining antimicrobial stewardship to improve outcomes in high-risk patients with severe infections.Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 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
Antimicrobial resistance driven by multidrug-resistant (MDR) Gram-negative pathogens poses a major global threat, contributing to substantial morbidity and mortality. Novel β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combinations, particularly meropenem-vaborbactam (M/V) and ceftazidime-avibactam (C/A), have expanded therapeutic options; however, their comparative efficacy and safety remain uncertain. This meta-analysis compared M/V and C/A in adult patients with MDR Gram-negative infections. MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central were searched for studies evaluating M/V versus C/A in hospitalized adults. Outcomes included all-cause mortality, clinical cure, and microbiological recurrence; safety was assessed qualitatively. Data were synthesized using Review Manager, with trial sequential analysis (TSA) applied to minimize random error. Five retrospective cohort studies (three full articles and two conference abstracts) comprising 3,280 patients were included, of whom 577 received M/V and 2,703 received C/A. Populations predominantly consisted of older adults aged 57-70 years, with respiratory tract infections being most common. Pooled analyses demonstrated no statistically significant differences between M/V compared to C/A in all-cause mortality (Odds ratio [OR] 0.87; 95% CI 0.69-1.11;
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.