The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Efficacy and Safety of Tigecycline for the Treatment of Complicated Intra‐Abdominal Infections: Analysis of Pooled Clinical Trial Data
Abstract
This pooled analysis includes 2 phase 3, double-blind trials designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of tigecycline, versus that of imipenem-cilastatin, in 1642 adults with complicated intra-abdominal infections. Patients were randomized to receive either tigecycline (initial dose of 100 mg, followed by 50 mg intravenously every 12 h) or imipenem-cilastatin (500/500 mg intravenously every 6 h) for 5-14 days. The primary end point was the clinical response at the test-of-cure visit (12-42 days after therapy) in the co-primary end point microbiologically evaluable and microbiological modified intent-to-treat populations. For the microbiologically evaluable group, clinical cure rates were 86.1% (441/512) for tigecycline, versus 86.2% (442/513) for imipenem-cilastatin (95% confidence interval for the difference, -4.5% to 4.4%; P < .0001 for noninferiority). Clinical cure rates in the microbiological modified intent-to-treat population were 80.2% (506/631) for tigecycline, versus 81.5% (514/631) for imipenem-cilastatin (95% confidence interval for the difference, -5.8% to 3.2%; P < .0001 for noninferiority). Nausea (24.4% tigecycline, 19.0% imipenem-cilastatin [P = .01]), vomiting (19.2% tigecycline, 14.3% imipenem-cilastatin [P = .008]), and diarrhea (13.8% tigecycline, 13.2% imipenem-cilastatin [P = .719]) were the most frequently reported adverse events. This pooled analysis demonstrates that tigecycline was efficacious and well tolerated in the treatment of patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Tamma, P. D., Aitken, S. L., Bonomo, R. A., Mathers, A. J., van Duin, D., & Clancy, C. J. (2023) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/cid/ciad428 · Cited by 740
Serum, tissue and body fluid concentrations of tigecycline after a single 100 mg dose
Rodvold, K. A., Gotfried, M. H., Cwik, M., Korth-Bradley, J. M., Dukart, G., & Ellis-Grosse, E. J. (2006) · Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy · doi:10.1093/jac/dkl403 · Cited by 304
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Babinchak, T., Ellis‐Grosse, E., Dartois, N., Rose, G. M., Loh, E., & Groups, T. 3. A. 3. S.
- Venue
- Clinical Infectious Diseases
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2005-09
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- s5
- Pages
- S354-S367
- ISSN
- 1058-4838 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-6591
- OpenAlex
- W2137408524
- Cited by
- 381
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 21.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Efficacy and Safety of Tigecycline for the Treatment of Complicated Intra‐Abdominal Infections: Analysis of Pooled Clinical Trial Data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/431676
- The paper
- Babinchak, T., Ellis‐Grosse, E., Dartois, N., Rose, G. M., Loh, E., & Groups, T. 3. A. 3. S. (2005). The Efficacy and Safety of Tigecycline for the Treatment of Complicated Intra‐Abdominal Infections: Analysis of Pooled Clinical Trial Data. Clinical Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1086/431676
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.