Evidence Hub

Empiric antibiotic therapy for moderate-to-severe community-acquired pneumonia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Maryam Ghadimi, Reed Alexander Cunningham Siemieniuk, Mark B Loeb, João Pedro Lima, Danial Aminaei, Huda A. Gomaa, Ying Wang, Afeez Abiola Hazzan et al.

Clinical Microbiology and Infection, 2025

29,157 participants · 5 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The optimal empiric antibiotic regimen for moderate-to-severe community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of antibiotics for empiric therapy of moderate-to-severe CAP using a network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and CINAHL from inception to 03 July 2024. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCT). PARTICIPANTS: Adults with moderate-to-severe CAP. INTERVENTIONS: Any empiric antibiotic regimen vs. another, placebo, or no treatment. ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS: Paired reviewers independently assessed risk of bias using a modified Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials. METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: We conducted frequentist random-effect network meta-analyses addressing patient-important outcomes and assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: In total, 143 RCTs involving 29,157 participants proved eligible. Effects are in comparison with respiratory fluoroquinolones alone. Penicillins alone (relative risks [RR]: 1.25, 95% CI: 0.93-1.67; risk difference [RD]: 33 more per 1000, 95% CI: 9 fewer to 88 more), second-generation cephalosporins alone (RR: 1.34, 95% CI: 0.89-2.02; RD: 45 more per 1000, 95% CI: 15 fewer to 135 more), and third-generation cephalosporins alone (RR: 1.32, 95% CI: 0.99-1.77; RD: 42 more per 1000, 95% CI: 1 fewer to 102 more) or…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 29,157 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

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.

Open this study Sign up free