SynthesisAnnals of medicine2026
Ceftriaxone for methicillin-susceptible
Synthesis in Annals of medicine, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBloodstream infections (BSIs) by methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality, traditionally treated with antistaphylococcal penicillins (ASPs) or cefazolin. Ceftriaxone has emerged as an alternative due to its once-daily dosing regimen and favourable safety profile; however, its efficacy compared to the standard of care (SoC) remains controversial. This evidence synthesis aimed to assess the role of ceftriaxone in treating MSSA-BSIs.
methodsA systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Scopus up to December 31, 2025 (PROSPERO protocol CRD42024595748). Studies comparing ceftriaxone to ASPs or cefazolin for MSSA-BSIs were included. Primary outcomes were 30-day and 90-day all-cause mortality . Pooled effect sizes with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were calculated using random-effects models, odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs) according to the type of outcome.
resultsEleven studies totalling 2,568 patients were included. Ceftriaxone was associated with significantly increased 30-day mortality (OR 3.33; 95% CI: 2.17-5.10), although differences at 90 days were not significant (OR 1.71; 95% CI: 0.75-3.90). No significant differences were noted for clinical success (OR 0.49; 95% CI: 0.19-1.26), microbiological clearance (OR 1.66; 95% CI: 0.73-3.82). Adverse event rates were similar between groups.
conclusionGiven the availability of various alternatives and the consistent short-term mortality signal observed, routine use of ceftriaxone for MSSA-BSIs, especially as initial therapy, is not supported by current evidence. Only novel findings from randomized studies may change the place in therapy of the drug in this context.
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.