ReviewDrugs1994
Comparative pharmacokinetics of the new oral cephalosporins.
Review in Drugs, 1994. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative effect of different types of food on the bioavailability of cefaclor extended release tablet.European journal of drug metabolism and pharmacokineticsTrial
- Comparison of ceftibuten vs. amoxicillin/clavulanic acid as antibiotic prophylaxis in cholecystectomy and/or biliary tract surgery.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary TractTrial
- Identification of Four Compounds with S-RBD-Binding and Pseudovirus Entry-Inhibitory Activity.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Effects of food on clinical pharmacokinetics.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 1999Review
- Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of newer oral cephalosporins: implications for treatment of community-acquired lower respiratory tract infections.Clinical drug investigation · 1998Article
- Ceftibuten in paediatrics.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 1994Article
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
The comparative pharmacokinetics of the new oral cephalosporins (ester and nonester types), together with that of the first generation carbacephem, loracarbef, are considered in healthy volunteers. Also in this review, pharmacokinetic and microbiological data are combined in order to predict the possible clinical efficacy of this group of agents. Despite apparent similarities in the structure of these agents, single dose studies have revealed marked differences in the pharmacokinetics of the oral cephalosporins. Multiple dose studies showed no evidence of accumulation with these agents. In the elderly, only minor changes in the pharmacokinetics of the oral agents were observed, and were insufficient to warrant dosage adjustment. Unlike that of the nonester compounds, the bioavailability of the ester cephalosporins is increased when they are administered after food. Variable effects are observed when the ester agents are coadministered with antacids or H2-antagonists; while the absorption of cefetamet pivoxil was unaffected by coadministered antacids or H2-antagonists, the absorption of cefpodoxime proxetil was reduced.
Indexed as
Identifiers
7518762What 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.