Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41676831›Full record

ArticleJMA journal2026

Differences in International Recommendations for Piperacillin Dosing: A Japanese Perspective.

Osamu Uemura

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMA 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Osamu UemuraDepartment of Pediatrics, Ichinomiya Medical Treatment & Habilitation Center, Ichinomiya-city Aichi, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Differences in antibiotic dosing recommendations highlight the tension between maximizing efficacy and ensuring safety. Piperacillin is a striking example, with the Sanford Guide recommending regimens of 13.5-27 g/day based on pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic principles aimed at patients who are critically ill, whereas the Japanese package insert advises 2-4 g/day, with a maximum of 16 g/day, reflecting a cautious approach focused on safety in general wards. These divergent strategies reflect distinct philosophies: international guidelines prioritize achieving pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic targets to optimize outcomes in patients in intensive care units (ICUs), whereas Japanese labeling emphasizes minimizing adverse events and ecological disruption in broader populations. The clinical consequences of indiscriminate application are significant. High-dose regimens used outside ICU contexts may increase risks of allergy, gastrointestinal disturbance, bone marrow suppression, renal injury, and selection of resistant organisms. Conversely, reliance solely on Japanese recommendations in ICU settings may cause suboptimal exposure and therapeutic failure in severe infections caused by organisms such as

Indexed as

general wardsintensive care unitJapanese package insertpharmacodynamicpharmacokineticpiperacillinPseudomonas aeruginosaSanford Guide

Identifiers

PMID41676831
PMCPMC12889215

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.