ArticleCritical care (London, England)2026
Comparative efficacy and safety of extended versus continuous infusion of beta-lactam antibiotics for severe infection: a network meta-analysis of randomized trials.
Article in Critical care (London, England), 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProlonged infusion (extended [EI, 2-4 h] or continuous [CI, 24 h] extended) of beta-lactam antibiotics is considered to have advantages for patients with severe infection compared with intermittent bolus (IB). However, the choice of EI and CI is unclear due to the lack of direct comparison. We aimed to compare the EI and CI of beta-lactams in patients with severe infections using a network meta-analysis method.
methodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang Database, and Weipu Database for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing EI, CI, or IB with beta-lactams in adults with severe infections. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. A frequentist network meta-analysis with a random-effects model was performed. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool.
findingsThirty-five RCTs (10,627 patients) were included. Risk of bias was moderate to high in most studies. For mortality, EI ranked highest (SUCRA 74.20%) with numerically lower rates versus IB (EI: OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55-1.17; CI: OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.62-1.02). Both EI and CI significantly improved clinical cure rates versus IB (EI: OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.13-2.23; CI: OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.05-1.85), and EI ranked first (SUCRA 87.72%). For microbiological success, CI ranked highest (SUCRA 83.03%), followed by EI (SUCRA 42.98%) and IB (SUCRA 23.99%), but no significant difference was found. For hospital stay, EI was associated with a reduction of borderline statistical significance (MD -3.49 days, 95% CI -6.79 - -0.08), whereas CI did not show a significant reduction (MD 1.11 days, 95% CI -1.24 - 3.63), and EI ranked best (SUCRA 98.09%). No significant adverse event differences were observed. Subgroup analyses showed variable treatment rankings across categories, with no statistically significant subgroup effects.
conclusionIn patients with severe infections, both EI and CI improved clinical cure versus IB, whereas mortality did not differ significantly. Indirect evidence suggests EI may be more effective than CI in most outcomes except microbiological response. EI trended to shorten hospital stay but the difference was of borderline significance. Considering its practical feasibility, EI appears to be a favorable option based on current evidence. However, this finding is based on indirect evidence and requires confirmation in head-to-head trials. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD420251242437.
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.