ArticlePloS one2026
Third-generation cephalosporin use is frequently non-guideline-concordant in severe community-acquired pneumonia: Findings from a French critical care cohort.
Article in PloS one, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesSevere community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality, requiring prompt empirical antibiotic therapy. The choice between amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (AMC) and third-generation cephalosporin (3GC) as first-line beta-lactam therapy in the ICU is still debated. To assess AMC and 3GC susceptibility in severe CAP or community-acquired aspiration pneumonia (CAAP) caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae (SP), Haemophilus influenzae (HI) and/or Staphylococcus aureus (SA), and to evaluate the appropriateness of empirical antibiotic therapy. METHODOLOGY: We conducted a single-center retrospective study including patients admitted to the ICU between 01/01/2018 and 30/11/2022 for severe CAP/CAAP with microbiological documentation of at least one of the targeted pathogens. Clinical, microbiological, therapeutic, and outcome data were collected. The primary endpoint was AMC and 3GC susceptibility rates (expressed as percentage and [95% confidence intervals]). PRINCIPAL
findingsAmong 104 included patients (median age 64 [48-71] years; 67% male), 60 (57.7%) had CAAP. AMC susceptibility rates were 81.5% [61.9-93.7], 78.0% [62.4-89.4], and 100% [92.6-100.0], while 3GC susceptibility rates were 96.3% [81.0-99.9], 95.1% [83.5-99.4], and 100% [92.6-100.0], for SP, HI, and SA, respectively. AMC was the empirical treatment in 59% of cases, and this choice was microbiologically appropriate in 86.9% of these prescriptions. Conversely, 3GC were prescribed empirically in 20% of cases, but this broad-spectrum choice was unjustified in 80% of those situations. Antibiotic de-escalation was performed in 28% of cases.
conclusionIn this single-center retrospective cohort, AMC appears to be a relevant empirical option for severe CAP/CAAP in the ICU, while 3GCs seem frequently overused. These findings required prospective multicenter validation before practice change can be recommended.
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.