SynthesisBMJ open2026
Effectiveness of amoxicillin and amoxicillin-clavulanate for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia in adults and children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study is to evaluate existing evidence on the effectiveness of amoxicillin and amoxicillin-clavulanate for community-acquired pneumonia in children and adults.
designSystematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Ovid-MEDLINER were searched with no language restrictions through 16 July 2024. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included studies comparing the effectiveness of amoxicillin or amoxicillin-clavulanate versus other antibiotics or placebo. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Only randomised controlled trials comparing amoxicillin or amoxicillin-clavulanate with another antibiotic or placebo with a primary outcome of clinical resolution or clinical failure were eligible for our review. We used random-effects and fixed-effects logistic regression models to estimate the pooled treatment effect size. Heterogeneity of the studies was evaluated using the τ statistic. We performed an unplanned frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis for the indirect comparison between amoxicillin and amoxicillin-clavulanate. The revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised trials was used to assess and categorise studies into low risk of bias, some concerns or high risk of bias.
resultsWe extracted data from 44 studies including 45 400 patients. We found no evidence of a differential effect on clinical resolution when comparing amoxicillin with other antibiotics (n=15 trials; pooled OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.56 to 1.38, where >1 favours amoxicillin) or amoxicillin-clavulanate with other antibiotics (n=17; OR 0.89; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.04). Similarly, evidence of difference in clinical failure between amoxicillin and other antibiotics was unclear and unable to rule out clinically important benefits or harms (n=8; OR 0.76; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.06, where <1 favours amoxicillin). We found no evidence of a differential effect on clinical resolution between adults treated with amoxicillin and amoxicillin-clavulanate (n=28; OR 1.04; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.70, where >1 favours amoxicillin-clavulanate). Sixty-three per cent and 29% of amoxicillin and amoxicillin-clavulanate studies, respectively, had low risk of bias according to the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised trials.
conclusionsCurrent evidence is unclear as to whether amoxicillin or amoxicillin-clavulanate differs from other antibiotics, or from each other, in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia, owing to the small number of trials and substantial heterogeneity in comparators used across study settings. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024568554.
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.