Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 466

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

β lactam monotherapy versus β lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy for sepsis in immunocompetent patients: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials

Open access
Paul, Mical, Benuri-Silbiger, Ishay, Soares-Weiser, Karla, Leibovici, Leonard·2004·BMJ

Abstract

Objective To compare β lactam monotherapy with β lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy for severe infections. Data sources Medline, Embase, Lilacs, Cochrane Library, and conference proceedings, to 2003; references of included studies; contact with all authors. No restrictions, such as language, year of publication, or publication status. Study selection All randomised trials of β lactam monotherapy compared with β lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy for patients without neutropenia who fulfilled criteria for sepsis. Data selection Two reviewers independently applied selection criteria, performed quality assessment, and extracted the data. The primary outcome assessed was all cause fatality by intention to treat. Relative risks were pooled with the random effect model (relative risk < 1 favours monotherapy). Results 64 trials with 7586 patients were included. There was no difference in all cause fatality (relative risk 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.77 to 1.06). 12 studies compared the same β lactam (1.02, 0.76 to 1.38), and 31 studies compared different β lactams (0.85, 0.69 to 1.05). Clinical failure was more common with combination treatment overall (0.87, 0.78 to 0.97) and among studies comparing different β lactams (0.76, 0.68 to 0.86). There was no advantage to combination therapy among patients with Gram negative infections (1835 patients) or Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections (426 patients). There was no difference in the rate of development of resistance. Nephrotoxicity was significantly more common with combination therapy (0.36, 0.28 to 0.47). Heterogeneity was not significant for these comparisons. Conclusions In the treatment of sepsis the addition of an aminoglycoside to β lactams should be discouraged. Fatality remains unchanged, while the risk for adverse events is increased.

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 · 10.1136/bmj.38028.520995.63

Cites

5 of 5 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

Cited by

See all 466

Metadata

Authors
Paul, M., Benuri-Silbiger, I., Soares-Weiser, K., & Leibovici, L.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2004-03-02
Volume
328
Issue
7441
Pages
668
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2158350453
Cited by
466
References
5
FWCI
4.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

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.