ArticleBMC infectious diseases2026
Evaluation of appropriateness of meropenem treatment and outcomes among internal medicine patients in Thailand.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveCarbapenems are commonly used empirically in referral hospitals; however, the appropriateness and outcomes of meropenem use in regional settings with rising multidrug resistance remain unclear.
methodsA retrospective cohort study of 528 patients who received at least 1 dose of meropenem in the internal medicine ward at Lampang hospital, Thailand during the study period (1 August 2022 and 31 December 2022).
resultsA total of 528 patients were enrolled. Of these, 281 (53.22%) were survivors, while 247 (46.78%) were non-survivors. Gram-negative bacteria were the most common infections, with 28.2% susceptible to carbapenems. The most frequent pathogens were Acinetobacter baumannii (16.7%), followed by Escherichia coli (13.6%) and Klebsiella spp. (8.0%). Pneumonia (36.93%) and urinary tract infection (21.97%) were the most common sites of infection. Appropriate empirical meropenem use was significantly more frequent among survivors than among non-survivors (93.7% vs. 87.4%; p = 0.020). Additionally, appropriate targeted meropenem therapy was administered in 13.96% of cases and was significantly more frequent among survivors than non-survivors (18.40% vs. 9.91%; p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis identified higher SOFA score and multiorgan dysfunction-particularly respiratory failure-as independent risk factors for 30-day all-cause mortality; respiratory tract infection and shorter length of hospital stay were also associated with mortality. Survivors had a significantly longer hospital stay than non-survivors (5.92 vs. 3.61 days; p = 0.007) and a higher microbiological cure rate (40.21% vs. 23.89%; p < 0.001).
conclusionAlthough appropriate antibiotic coverage was more frequently observed among patients with favorable outcomes, severity of illness and organ dysfunction remained the primary determinants of survival. Appropriate empirical and targeted therapy, alongside optimal critical care management, should be emphasized in the treatment of these severe infections in regional settings.
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.