ArticleAnnals of clinical microbiology and antimicrobials2026
Effectiveness of cefazolin versus anti-staphylococcal β-lactam for treating methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus pneumonia in critically ill patients admitted to intensive care units: a multicenter cohort study.
Article in Annals of clinical microbiology and antimicrobials, 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
26 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCritically ill patients carry a high risk of infections and related complications, which significantly increase mortality. For patients with confirmed methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) pneumonia, the optimal definitive β-lactam therapy remains controversial. To date, clinical evidence comparing the effectiveness of cefazolin against other antistaphylococcal β-lactam antibiotics in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting is limited. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of cefazolin versus non-cefazolin β-lactam antibiotics for treating MSSA pneumonia in critically ill adults.
methodsWe conducted a multicenter, retrospective cohort study from January 2016 to July 2021 at three tertiary hospitals in Saudi Arabia. The study included adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with confirmed MSSA respiratory infections who received definitive, targeted anti-MSSA β-lactam therapy. Eligible patients were categorized into two groups based on the specific antibiotic received (cefazolin vs. non-cefazolin β-lactam antibiotics). The primary outcome was treatment failure, while all other endpoints were considered secondary. Logistic, linear, and negative binomial regression analyses were utilized to analyze the study's endpoints, as appropriate.
resultsA total of 54 patients were included in the study, evenly distributed with 27 patients in the cefazolin group and 27 in the alternative anti-MSSA β-lactam group. The treatment failure rate was significantly higher in the cefazolin group compared to the non-cefazolin β-lactam antibiotics group (OR 5.73; 95% CI (1.303-25.191), p = 0.02). Moreover, the rate of re-escalation to other antibiotics was higher in the cefazolin group (OR 17.98; 95% CI (2.731-118.425), p = 0.002). No significant difference was found in time to defervescence, or MSSA recurrence infection rate within three months. In addition, in-hospital and 30-day mortality rates, ICU re-admission, length of stay, and ventilator-free days were not statistically significant different between the two groups.
conclusionIn critically ill patients with MSSA pneumonia, cefazolin was associated with higher rates of treatment failure and re-escalation compared to non-cefazolin β-lactams antibiotics. Further studies with a larger sample size are needed to validate these findings.
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.