ArticleJournal of clinical medicine research2026
Clinical Outcomes of Aerosolized Versus Intravenous Colistin in Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia Caused by Multidrug-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacteria.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine research, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) caused by multidrug-resistant (MDR) Gram-negative bacteria has presented significant treatment challenges in critical care. While intravenous colistin is commonly used, its nephrotoxicity and limited lung penetration raise concerns. This study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of aerosolized versus intravenous colistin in patients with VAP. Methods: The study included 60 adult patients diagnosed with VAP caused by colistin-sensitive MDR Gram-negative bacteria. Treatment decisions (aerosolized or intravenous colistin) were made by attending physicians based on clinical judgment (n = 30 per each group). The primary outcome was clinical success; secondary outcomes included time to defervescence, Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score changes, and adverse events. Results: Clinical success was achieved in 80.0% of patients in the aerosolized group compared with 70.0% in the intravenous group (P = 0.38). The time to defervescence was significantly shorter in the aerosolized group (3.0 ± 1.2 days) than in the intravenous group (5.0 ± 1.7 days; P = 0.002). Nephrotoxicity occurred in 13.3% of patients receiving aerosolized colistin and in 23.3% of those receiving intravenous colistin (odds ratio (OR) 0.51; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.13-2.03; P = 0.19). Microbiological clearance was observed in 66.7% of the aerosolized group and 56.7% of the intravenous group (P = 0.44). Intensive care unit mortality was 16.7% in the aerosolized group and 23.3% in the intravenous group (P = 0.52). Conclusion: Aerosolized colistin was feasible and generally well tolerated; however, these findings should be interpreted as descriptive and hypothesis-generating, and further studies are needed to confirm their clinical relevance.
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.