ReviewDrugs1994
Comparative clinical efficacy of cefetamet pivoxil in lower respiratory tract infection.
Review in Drugs, 1994. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
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
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cefetamet pivoxil, because of its activity against respiratory pathogens and its pharmacokinetic behaviour, is expected to have clinical efficacy in the treatment of lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI). This paper presents an overview of clinical trials conducted worldwide to investigate the efficacy and tolerability of cefetamet pivoxil in the treatment of adults and children with LRTI. A total of 626 adult patients, the majority of whom presented with exacerbations of chronic bronchitis (n = 500), received oral cefetamet pivoxil 500 or 1000mg twice daily for 5 to 10 days (n = 351) or a standard comparator agent (n = 275). The comparator agents were amoxicillin (750mg 3 or 4 times daily, or 1000mg twice daily), amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (625mg 3 times daily), or cefaclor (250 or 500mg 3 times daily) administered for 5 to 12 days. A satisfactory clinical outcome (cure + improvement) was achieved in 79 to 94% of evaluable patients. In 336 children, 240 received cefetamet pivoxil at 2 dosage levels (10 or 20 mg/kg twice daily) for 7 to 12 days and 96 received the standard comparator, cefaclor (10 mg/kg 3 times daily). Cefetamet pivoxil was clinically effective at both dosages, and did not differ significantly compared with cefaclor (clinical cure rates of 97 to 99% with cefetamet pivoxil and 96% with cefaclor). A separate analysis of 305 patients with community-acquired pneumonia showed clinical successes in 80 to 100% of adults, 75 to 78% of elderly patients, and 98% of children treated with cefetamet pivoxil.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
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.