ReviewDrugs1997
Choosing the right macrolide antibiotic. A guide to selection.
Review in Drugs, 1997. 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, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- Breaking boundaries: the advancements in transdermal delivery of antibiotics.Drug delivery · 2024Review
- Erythromycin decreases the time and improves the quality of EGD in patients with acute upper GI bleeding.Gastroenterology and hepatology from bed to bench · 2013Article
- [Guidelines for the management of community pneumonia in adult who needs hospitalization].Medicina intensiva · 2005Article
- Macrolide resistance conferred by base substitutions in 23S rRNA.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2001Review
- Review
- A Phase I Determination of Azithromycin in Plasma during a 6-Week Period in Normal Volunteers after a Standard Dose of 500mg Once Daily for 3 Days.Clinical drug investigation · 1998Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Macrolide antibiotics have proven to be valuable alternatives to penicillins and cephalosporins for the treatment of a number of infections. Currently, a number of macrolides are available. When choosing a particular macrolide, the types of organisms causing the infection, the tolerability of the drug, convenience of dosing and possible drug interactions all must be taken into account. Erythromycin, azithromycin and clarithromycin are equally effective against most gram-positive organisms. However, clarithromycin and azithromycin have much better activity against Haemophilus influenza and Moraxella catarrhalis. Thus, these 2 drugs are better choices for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia. However, the low serum concentrations of azithromycin may be a problem in patients with bacteraemia associated with with community-acquired pneumonia. Clarithromycin appears to be effective for the treatment and prophylaxis of Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC) in patients with AIDS, while azithromycin appears to be effective for prophylaxis. Treatment of MAC with azithromycin is currently undergoing study. Although clarithromycin is the macrolide of choice for the treatment of Helicobacter pylori, azithromycin is the preferred macrolide for the treatment of Chlamydia trachomatis infections. The major factor limiting the use of azithromycin and clarithromycin has been their cost. However, these drugs may be cost effective if compliance is improved due to better tolerability and more convenient dosing regimens.
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.