ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Comparative significance of piperacillin-tazobactam and cefotaxime-tazobactam in the treatment of respiratory tract infections in the elderly.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the clinical outcomes associated with piperacillin-tazobactam (PIP-TAZ) versus cefotaxime-tazobactam (CTX-TAZ) in elderly patients with lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI). Methods: A total of 92 elderly patients with respiratory tract infection from March 2024 to April 2025 were selected as the subjects and divided into two groups of 46 cases in each group according to different treatment drugs. The control group was treated with tazobactam sodium/cefotaxime sodium, and the observation group was treated with piperacillin sodium for injection. The effects of the two groups were evaluated after 2 weeks of treatment. The blood gas level, inflammatory factors, lung function and drug safety were compared between the two groups. Results: Both groups showed significant improvements in arterial blood gases after treatment. Patients receiving PIP-TAZ exhibited a significantly greater increase in PaO2 and a greater reduction in PaCO2 compared to those receiving CTX-TAZ (both Conclusion: In this comparative study, both piperacillin-tazobactam and cefotaxime-tazobactam demonstrated clinical effectiveness in improving objective physiological and inflammatory parameters in elderly patients with LRTIs. In this non-randomized comparison, the piperacillin-tazobactam regimen was associated with statistically significant, but unadjusted, differences favoring greater improvements in arterial blood gases (PaO2 and PaCO2), reductions in inflammatory biomarkers (PCT, WBC, CRP), and enhancements in lung function indices (PEF, FVC, FEV1) after 2 weeks of treatment compared to the cefotaxime-tazobactam regimen. These observed differences should be considered exploratory. Both treatments exhibited a comparable and acceptable safety profile in this cohort. However, these findings should be interpreted in light of the study's non-randomized design, heterogeneous infection types, and the inherent differences between the antibiotic regimens. Further large-scale, randomized controlled trials with microbiological confirmation are warranted to validate these observations and define the optimal empiric antibiotic strategy in this vulnerable population.
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.