Efficiency of polymyxin B treatment against nosocomial infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Some cohort studies have explored the effects and safety of polymyxin B (PMB) in comparison to other antibiotics for the treatment of nosocomial infections, yielding inconsistent results. This systematic review aims to explore the effectiveness and safety of PMB and compared it with other antibiotics. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, searching specific terms to identify quantitative cohort studies or RCTs that compared the effects of PMB with other antibiotics in terms of their efficacy and safety. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) was conducted to evaluate the risk of bias of observational studies. Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were used for outcome assessment. We evaluated heterogeneity using the I2 test. Results A total of 22 observational trials were included in the analysis. The PMB group had a higher mortality rate compared to the control group (odds ratio: 1.84, 95% CI: 1.36–2.50, p<0.00001, I2 = 73%). while, the ceftazidime-avibactam group demonstrated a distinct advantage with lower mortality rates, despite still exhibiting high heterogeneity (odds ratio 2.73, 95% confidence interval 1.59–4.69; p = 0.0003; I2 = 53%). Additionally, the PMB group had a lower nephrotoxicity rate compared to the colistin group but exhibited high heterogeneity in the results (odds ratio 0.58, 95% CI 0.36–0.93; p = 0.02; I2 = 73%). Conclusion In patients with nosocomial infections, PMB is not superior to other antibiotics in terms of mortality, specifically when compared to ceftazidime-avibactam. However, PMB demonstrated an advantage in terms of nephrotoxicity compared to colistin.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.045 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".