Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 225

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A systematic review on clinical benefits of continuous administration of β-lactam antibiotics*

Roberts, Jason A., Webb, Steven, Paterson, David, Ho, Kwok M., Lipman, Jeffrey·2009·Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The clinical benefits of extended infusion or continuous infusion of beta-lactam antibiotics remain controversial. We systematically reviewed the literature to determine whether any clinical benefits exist for administration of beta-lactam antibiotics by extended or continuous infusion. DATA SOURCE: PubMed (January 1950 to November 2007), EMBASE (1966 to November 2007), and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register were searched (updated November 2007). STUDY SELECTIONS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were meta-analyzed, and observational studies were described by two unblinded reviewers. DATA EXTRACTION: A total of 846 patients from eligible prospective randomized controlled studies were included in the meta-analysis. Two observational studies were deemed appropriate for description. DATA SYNTHESIS: A meta-analysis of prospective RCTs was undertaken using Review Manager. Among a total of 59 potentially relevant studies, 14 RCTs involving a total of 846 patients from nine countries were deemed appropriate for meta-analysis. The use of continuous infusion of a beta-lactam antibiotic was not associated with an improvement in clinical cure (n = 755 patients; odds ratio: 1.04, 95% confidence interval: 0.74-1.46, p = 0.83, I = 0%) or mortality (n = 541 patients; odds ratio: 1.00, 95% confidence interval: 0.48-2.06, p = 1.00, I = 14.8%). All RCTs except one used a higher antibiotic dose in the bolus administration group. Two observational studies, not pooled because they did not meet the a priori criteria for meta-analysis, showed that beta-lactam administration by extended or continuous infusion was associated with an improvement in clinical cure. The difference in the results between the meta-analysis results and the observational studies could be explained by the bias created by a higher dose of antibiotic in the bolus group in the RCTs and because many of the RCTs only recruited patients with a low acuity of illness. CONCLUSIONS: The limited data available suggest that continuous infusion of beta-lactam antibiotics leads to the same clinical results as higher dosed bolus administration in hospitalized patients.

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 · 10.1097/ccm.0b013e3181a0054d

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 225

Metadata

Authors
Roberts, J. A., Webb, S., Paterson, D., Ho, K. M., & Lipman, J.
Venue
Critical Care Medicine
Published
2009-06
Volume
37
Issue
6
Pages
2071-2078
ISSN
0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2079827630
Cited by
225
References
3
FWCI
2.53
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: A systematic review on clinical benefits of continuous administration of β-lactam antibiotics*. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/ccm.0b013e3181a0054d
The paper
Roberts, J. A., Webb, S., Paterson, D., Ho, K. M., & Lipman, J. (2009). A systematic review on clinical benefits of continuous administration of β-lactam antibiotics*. Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0b013e3181a0054d

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.