β-Lactam/macrolide dual therapy versus β-lactam monotherapy for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Several studies have compared the clinical effect of β-lactam/macrolide (BLM) dual therapy versus β-lactam (BL) monotherapy in community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) patients. However, the results remain controversial. Thus, we did this meta-analysis to determine which treatment was more effective. METHODS: Databases comprising PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials were searched to find relevant studies. The primary outcome was mortality. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to evaluate the methodological quality of included studies. Multivariable-adjusted ORs with 95% CIs were pooled in the random effects model. RESULTS: Four prospective cohort studies and 12 retrospective cohort studies were included (n = 42 942). Compared with BL monotherapy, BLM dual therapy was significantly associated with reduced mortality (adjusted OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.61-0.73, P < 0.001, I(2) = 3%). Subsequent subgroup analyses confirmed that BLM dual therapy was statistically superior to BL monotherapy in reduction of mortality. Sensitivity analyses strengthened the validity of the results. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with BL monotherapy, BLM dual therapy might reduce mortality risk in patients with CAP. Because this finding is based on observational studies, randomized controlled trials are required to demonstrate the usefulness of BLM dual therapy in the treatment of CAP.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".