Evidence map›Paper›PMID 7681376›Full record

ReviewDrugs1993

Cefprozil. A review of its antibacterial activity, pharmacokinetic properties, and therapeutic potential.

L R Wiseman, P Benfield

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Drugs, 1993. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Population Pharmacokinetics ofPharmaceutics · 2019
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Cefprozil: a review.Indian journal of pediatrics · 2003
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

L R WisemanAdis International Limited, Auckland, New Zealand.
P Benfield

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cefprozil is an orally active cephalosporin which has demonstrated activity against a wide range of organisms in vitro. It is particularly active against the Gram-positive organisms Streptococcus pyogenes, pneumoniae and agalactiae and against methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus. Strains of methicillin-resistant S. aureus are not susceptible to cefprozil. Cefprozil is also moderately active against Haemophilus influenzae, Moraxella catarrhalis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, many Enterobacteriaceae and certain anaerobic organisms, and is relatively stable to hydrolysis by a number of beta-lactamases. In comparative trials, the clinical and bacteriological efficacy of cefprozil 500mg or 20 mg/kg administered once or twice daily has been comparable with multiple daily dosage regimens of erythromycin in patients with tonsillitis or pharyngitis, with cefaclor and amoxicillin/clavulanate in lower respiratory tract infections, with amoxicillin/clavulanate and erythromycin in skin and skin-structure infections and with cefaclor in acute uncomplicated urinary tract infections. The clinical efficacy of cefprozil is similar to that of cefaclor in patients with tonsillitis or pharyngitis but the bacteriological efficacy of cefprozil is significantly greater than that of cefaclor. Cefprozil is clinically more effective than cefuroxime axetil in the treatment of lower respiratory tract infections and demonstrated greater efficacy than cefaclor in one of 2 comparative studies when administered twice daily in patients with skin and skin-structure infections. In children with acute otitis media, cefprozil 15 mg/kg twice daily was as effective as cefaclor or amoxicillin/clavulanate 13.3 mg/kg 3 times daily and was as effective as cefixime 8 mg/kg once daily. The most frequently reported adverse effects associated with cefprozil, diarrhoea and nausea, are usually mild to moderate in severity and discontinuation of treatment is rarely necessary. Thus, cefprozil with its convenient administration regimen appears to be a suitable alternative to cefaclor, cefixime, amoxicillin/clavulanate or erythromycin for the treatment of upper and lower respiratory tract infections, skin and skin-structure infections, and otitis media in children. While cefprozil has shown similar efficacy to cefaclor in the treatment of uncomplicated urinary tract infections, well-controlled clinical trials comparing its efficacy with that of cotrimoxazole (trimethoprim+sulfamethoxazole) in this indication are required.

Indexed as

AnimalsBacteriaBacterial InfectionsCefprozilCephalosporinsHumansMicrobial Sensitivity TestsOtitis MediaSkin Diseases, InfectiousUrinary Tract InfectionsCefprozilCephalosporins

Identifiers

PMID7681376
OpenAlexW2061069199

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.