SynthesisBMC infectious diseases2026
Antimicrobial interventions in multi drug resistance providencia associated infection; a systematic review and meta-analysis of case reports.
Synthesis in BMC infectious diseases, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesProvidencia infections are rare but emerging clinical entities with limited published evidence. We performed a pooled descriptive analysis by extracting data from case reports and case series to elucidate the clinical characteristics, outcomes, and potential predictors of adverse events.
methodsA total of 69 cases of Providencia infection were analyzed (mean age: 52.77 ± 21.04 years; 61.19% male). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and infection types. Complete-case data were used for regression analyses specifically, 63 cases for the sepsis outcome, 64 cases for urinary tract infections (UTIs), 62 cases for tracheal aspirates (TAs), and 46 cases for mortality. Logistic regression models with cluster-robust standard errors were applied to account for intra-study dependencies. Variables were selected for multivariable modeling using a backward stepwise approach with a p-value threshold of ≤ 0.3.
resultsThe overall in-hospital mortality was 20.0% (13/69). The predominant infection types were bloodstream infections (sepsis) in 21 cases (30.43%), UTIs in 18 cases (26.09%), and surgical site infections in 17 cases (24.64%). In multivariable regression analysis, the experience of shock during hospitalization emerged as a significant predictor of poor outcome; patients who experienced shock had an adjusted odds ratio of 5.57 (95% confidence interval: 1.26-24.61, p = 0.023) for adverse events. Other factors, such as gender, underlying comorbidities, and various antibiotic administrations (e.g., cephalosporine, beta-lactam, carbapenem), were not independently associated with the outcomes in the final models. Notable exploratory signals: shock→mortality; cephalosporins→UTI; fluoroquinolones→SSI; longer antibiotic duration→lower TA positivity (all imprecise).
conclusionsOur pooled descriptive analysis of Providencia infections reveals an overall mortality rate of 20.0% and identifies shock during hospitalization as an independent predictor of adverse outcomes. Because the evidence is derived from heterogeneous case reports and small case series with substantial missing data, all adjusted estimates are imprecise and should be considered hypothesis‑generating; they must not be used to guide clinical practice without confirmation in prospective studies. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.