2019
DOI: 10.1080/1120009x.2019.1688490
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Retrospective evaluation of the patients with urinary tract infections due to carbapenemase producing Enterobacteriaceae

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Colistin, which has a narrow therapeutic window, has been previously recommended, however, it has still remained controversial in patients with renal dysfunction (5). Double-carbapenem regimen (meropenem and ertapenem) was reported to be an effective option to treat KPC-producing CRE infection, even in patients with meropenem MICs (6,7). Ertapenem which has stronger bonding capability to KPC, is degraded preferentially, and then, the other kinds of carbapenems can be protected (6).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Colistin, which has a narrow therapeutic window, has been previously recommended, however, it has still remained controversial in patients with renal dysfunction (5). Double-carbapenem regimen (meropenem and ertapenem) was reported to be an effective option to treat KPC-producing CRE infection, even in patients with meropenem MICs (6,7). Ertapenem which has stronger bonding capability to KPC, is degraded preferentially, and then, the other kinds of carbapenems can be protected (6).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The study conducted by De Pascale et al, 2017 (18) was determined to have a moderate risk of bias due to missing data, all other included studies were determined to have a low risk of bias due to missing data (19,20,21,22,23,24). In addition, all studies had low risk of bias in both measurements of outcomes and in selection of the reported result (18,19,20,21,22,23,24). As shown in table 2.…”
Section: Risk Of Bias Assessment Of Included Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The studies selected for inclusion were assessed for risk of bias and all included studies were determined to have a moderate risk of bias, with the exception of the study conducted by Gutierrez-Gutierrez et al, 2017, (20) (18,19,20,21,22,23,24). Similarly all included studies were determined to have a low risk of bias due to deviations from intended interventions and in bias due to classification of interventions (18,19,20,21,22,23,24). The study conducted by De Pascale et al, 2017 (18) was determined to have a moderate risk of bias due to missing data, all other included studies were determined to have a low risk of bias due to missing data (19,20,21,22,23,24).…”
Section: Risk Of Bias Assessment Of Included Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations