Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 381

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

Babinchak, Timothy, Ellis‐Grosse, Evelyn, Dartois, Nathalie, Rose, Gilbert M., Loh, Evan, Tigecycline 301 and 306 Study Groups·2005·Clinical Infectious Diseases

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1086/431676

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 381

Metadata

Authors
Babinchak, T., Ellis‐Grosse, E., Dartois, N., Rose, G. M., Loh, E., & Groups, T. 3. A. 3. S.
Venue
Clinical Infectious Diseases
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.