ReviewAmerican journal of translational research2025
The role of β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combinations in multidrug-resistant bacterial infections: a comprehensive meta-analysis.
Review in American journal of translational research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMultidrug-resistant (MDR) bacterial infections pose a global public health challenge. β-Lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combinations (BLIs) are essential for treating MDR infections, although their efficacy varies across studies. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate their clinical value.
methodsA systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library was conducted for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on BLIs for MDR bacterial infections published from January 2000 to December 2024. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4. Primary outcomes included clinical efficacy rate, bacterial clearance rate, and incidence of adverse reactions.
resultsEighteen high-quality RCTs involving 2,356 patients were included. BLIs showed a significantly higher clinical efficacy rate (76.23%) than controls (62.45%) (RR=1.59, 95% CI: 1.44-1.73, P<0.001) and bacterial clearance rate (71.58% vs. 58.67%, RR=1.21, 95% CI: 1.16-1.26, P<0.001). Subgroup analysis revealed clinical efficacy rates of 73.45% for carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) and 78.32% for ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae, with bacterial clearance rates of 68.72% and 74.11%, respectively. The adverse reaction rate in the BLI group was 15.68% (mainly diarrhea, nausea, rash), which was not significantly different from the control group (17.89%, RR=0.96, 95% CI: 0.85-1.07, P=0.977).
conclusionBLIs demonstrate high efficacy, bacterial clearance, and safety in treating MDR infections, particularly CRE and ESBL infections. Larger multicenter RCTs are needed for further validation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.