ArticleBMC infectious diseases2026
Effect of adding metronidazole to meropenem on clinical efficacy in complicated intra-abdominal infections: a retrospective study.
Article 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundComplicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAI), often caused by a diverse range of organisms, are commonly managed with appropriate empiric antimicrobial therapy, particularly broad-spectrum agents such as meropenem (MEPM). Anaerobes contribute to 30%-80% of the causative pathogens, and Bacteroides fragilis, a typical anaerobe, has been reported to exhibit increased resistance to antimicrobial agents. Metronidazole (MNZ) has shown significant antibacterial activity against anaerobes and a different mechanism of action; therefore, its addition to MEPM may improve its clinical efficacy. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of adding MNZ to MEPM on the clinical efficacy of empiric antimicrobial therapy for cIAI.
methodsThis retrospective study spanned 9 years and included 114 patients who underwent empiric antimicrobial therapy with MEPM monotherapy or MEPM plus MNZ combination therapy for cIAI caused by lower gastrointestinal perforation in conjunction with surgery or percutaneous drainage. Propensity score matching was applied to adjust for background factors. The primary outcome was the cure rate, while secondary outcomes included 28-day mortality and the duration of hospitalization following surgical intervention.
resultsThere were no significant differences in the cure rates, 28-day mortality or hospitalization durations between the MEPM monotherapy group and the MEPM plus MNZ group [cure rates: 91.2% (83/91) vs. 91.3% (21/23), respectively, p = 0.999; 28-day mortality: 2.2% (2/91) vs. 4.3% (1/23), respectively, p = 0.495; hospitalization durations, median (interquartile range): 18 days (11.5-26.5) vs. 20 days (15.5-32.0), respectively; p = 0.214]. Twenty patients were selected for each group using propensity score matching. No significant differences were observed in cure rates, 28-day mortality, or hospitalization durations between the MEPM monotherapy group and the MEPM plus MNZ group [cure rates: 85.0% (17/20) vs. 95.0% (19/20), respectively, p = 0.605; 28-day mortality: 10% (2/20) vs. 5% (1/20), respectively, p = 0.999; hospitalization durations, median (interquartile range): 16 days (11.8-24) vs. 20.5 days (16.3-38.3), respectively; p = 0.184].
conclusionIn this single-center retrospective cohort, there was no evidence that adding MNZ to MEPM improved clinical efficacy in empiric antimicrobial therapy with infection-source control in cIAI. 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.