Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 181

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Meropenem by Continuous Versus Intermittent Infusion in Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia due to Gram-Negative Bacilli

Lorente, Leonardo, Lorenzo, Lisset, Martín, María M, Jiménez, Alejandro, Mora, María L·2006·Annals of Pharmacotherapy

Abstract

Background: It is known that β-lactam antibiotics exhibit time-dependent bactericidal activity. Several studies have found continuous infusion of meropenem more effective than intermittent infusion in maintaining constant serum concentrations in excess of the minimum inhibitory concentration. However, limited data exist on the clinical efficacy of meropenem administered by continuous infusion. Objective: To evaluate the clinical efficacy of continuous versus intermittent infusion of meropenem for the treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) due to gram-negative bacilli. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted of patients with VAP caused by gram-negative bacilli who received initial empiric antibiotic therapy with meropenem. We analyzed 2 contemporary cohorts: one group received meropenem by continuous infusion (1 g over 360 min every 6 h), the other by intermittent infusion (1 g over 30 min every 6 h). The administration method was prescribed according to the physician's discretion. Patients received meropenem plus tobramycin for 14 days. Results: There were no significant differences between patient groups with regard to gender, age, APACHE-II at intensive care unit admission, diagnosis, microorganism responsible for VAP, or organ dysfunction severity at the time VAP was suspected. The group receiving medication by continuous infusion showed a greater clinical cure rate than the group treated with intermittent infusion (38 of 42, 90.47%, vs 28 of 47, 59.57%, respectively, with OR 6.44 [95% Cl 1.97 to 21.05; p < 0.001]). Conclusions: Meropenem administered by continuous infusion may have more clinical efficacy than intermittent infusion.

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 · 10.1345/aph.1g467

Cites

1 of 1 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

Cited by

See all 181

Metadata

Authors
Lorente, L., Lorenzo, L., Martín, M. M., Jiménez, A., & Mora, M. L.
Venue
Annals of Pharmacotherapy
Published
2006-02
Volume
40
Issue
2
Pages
219-223
ISSN
  • 0012-6578 (ISSN-L)
  • 1060-0280
  • 1542-6270
OpenAlex
W2160331061
Cited by
181
References
1
FWCI
6.23
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: Meropenem by Continuous Versus Intermittent Infusion in Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia due to Gram-Negative Bacilli. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1345/aph.1g467
The paper
Lorente, L., Lorenzo, L., Martín, M. M., Jiménez, A., & Mora, M. L. (2006). Meropenem by Continuous Versus Intermittent Infusion in Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia due to Gram-Negative Bacilli. Annals of Pharmacotherapy. https://doi.org/10.1345/aph.1g467

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.