An International, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind, Double-dummy, Two-way, Parallel Group, Controlled Study to Compare the Efficacy and Safety of Intravenous and Oral Nemonoxacin Versus Tavanic® in Adult Patients With Community-acquired Pneumonia
Abstract
The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of treatment with Nemonoxacin compared with Tavanic® in patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP).
Conditions: Pneumonia, Bacterial.
Primary outcome: Number of Patients With Clinical Success as Judged by the Investigator.
Enrollment: 342 participants.
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 342 participants or records.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Severe clinical outcomes of COVID-19 associated with proton pump inhibitors: a nationwide cohort study with propensity score matching
- Thiophenes—Naturally Occurring Plant Metabolites: Biological Activities and In Silico Evaluation of Their Potential as Cathepsin D Inhibitors
- Inhalable Mannosylated Rifampicin–Curcumin Co-Loaded Nanomicelles with Enhanced In Vitro Antimicrobial Efficacy for an Optimized Pulmonary Tuberculosis Therapy
- Association between cord blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations and respiratory tract infections in the first 6 months of age in a Korean population: a birth cohort study (COCOA)
- GC-MS Analysis and Biomedical Therapy of Oil from n-Hexane Fraction of Scutellaria edelbergii Rech. f.: In Vitro, In Vivo, and In Silico Approach
- Novel Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Parameters Quantify the Exposure–Effect Relationship of Levofloxacin against Fluoroquinolone-Resistant Escherichia coli
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.