SynthesisThe Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy2026
Ceftaroline and ceftobiprole monotherapy for the treatment of Staphylococcus aureus infections: a systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis.
Synthesis in The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe comparative efficacy of ceftaroline and ceftobiprole against standard of care for Staphylococcus aureus infections, including methicillin-resistant S. aureus remains uncertain. Thus, we conducted a systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of ceftaroline and ceftobiprole monotherapy for non-urinary S. aureus infections.
methodsWe registered the protocol in PROSPERO. We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science. We included randomized controlled trials and comparative non-randomized studies reporting adjusted estimates, enrolling patients with non-urinary S. aureus infections. The primary analysis assessed clinical cure in randomized trials using a Bayesian random-effects model with a vague prior. For ceftaroline, we additionally conducted an exploratory analysis using an observationally informed prior derived from non-randomized studies with variance inflation. Risk of bias was assessed with RoB 2 and ROBINS-I and certainty of evidence with GRADE.
resultsSixteen studies met inclusion criteria [11 ceftaroline (1030 subjects); 5 ceftobiprole (1265 subjects)]. In the primary analysis, the pooled odds ratio for clinical cure was 1.38 (95% CrI 0.81-2.44) for ceftaroline and 0.99 (95% CrI 0.59-1.62) for ceftobiprole. The exploratory ceftaroline analysis using an observationally informed prior yielded an odds ratio of 1.45 (95% CrI 0.91-2.38). Adverse events and serious adverse events were similar between groups. Certainty of evidence was low for ceftaroline and moderate for ceftobiprole.
conclusionsCurrent evidence does not demonstrate superiority of ceftaroline or ceftobiprole over standard-of-care therapy for clinical cure in non-urinary S. aureus infections. Estimates remain imprecise and are largely driven by registrational trials and subgroup data. These findings support cautious, indication-specific interpretation rather than routine preference of these agents over established therapies.
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.