Sequence of Antibiotic Administration for the Treatment of

Amy Leestemaker-Palmer, Stephanie Nuss, Luiz E Bermudez

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Amy Leestemaker-PalmerDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Carlson College of Veterinary Medicine, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA.

Stephanie NussDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Carlson College of Veterinary Medicine, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA.

Luiz E BermudezDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Carlson College of Veterinary Medicine, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2848-8987

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

objectives

methodsBased on this assumption and the fact that the medication used to treat

resultsThe results showed no difference regarding the response of the bacterium to treatment with the three antibiotics when in planktonic state. However, in either the biofilm phenotype or inside macrophages, different orders of exposure to antibiotics led to different responses. In macrophages, the sequence of exposure when ethambutol was given first, followed by clarithromycin and rifabutin, was associated with bacterial count decrease, similar to the simultaneous exposure to the three antibiotics, whereas the other combinations showed a decreased effect.

conclusionsIn summary, the study highlights an important aspect of bacterial response to combination therapies, and more specifically, the response of

Indexed as

biofilmclarithromycinethambutolinhibitionkillingmacrophagesMycobacterium avium subsp. hominissuisrifabutin

Identifiers

PMID42353717

DOI10.3390/antibiotics15060593

PMCPMC13295658

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.