Due to an oversight by the Editorial Office, Figure 1 in the original publication [...]
BACKGROUND:PubMed Central (PMC) is a freely accessible digital repository offering full-text biomedical literature with structured metadata. Despite its scale, its suitability as a resource for systematic reviews, particularly in medical research and education, remains underexplored. METHODS:We studied the proportion of systematic reviews using PMC compared to other resources. Additionally, we examined the number of results retrieved by search strategies in PMC compared to PubMed in three random samples of subject topics (10 of 28 of the general and 25 of 413 of the extensive contents of the "Goldman's Cecil Medicine, 26th Edition" textbook, and 25 of 502 of the essential medicines listed in the "World Health Organization Model List of Essential Medicines"). RESULTS:About 0.5% of 407 242 systematic reviews archived in PubMed included PMC in the title and/or abstract, a considerably lower proportion compared to other resources (36%, 33.9%, 30.4%, 18%, 14.1%, and 5.8% for PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar, respectively). Even though PMC includes a considerably smaller number of articles than PubMed (11 vs. 39 million), the yield from PMC was higher compared to PubMed in the studied random samples [in 9/10 (90%), 21/25 (84%), and 25/25 (100%) of subject topics]. DISCUSSION:PMC is rarely utilized for systematic reviews. Although the number of articles retrieved from PMC is higher than PubMed, further studies should evaluate the comparative relevance of their yield, as PMC may return fewer specific articles on the studied research topic due to its inclusion of full-text articles. Key messages What is already known on this topic PubMed Central (PMC) is a free resource of full-text articles in biomedical fields. What this study adds Our study shows that PMC is rarely used as a resource for full-text articles for systematic reviews in biomedical research and education. In all three random samples of clinical medicine subjects that we studied, the yield of articles was higher in PMC than in PubMed. How this study might affect research, practice, or policy Future studies should focus on the relevance (specificity) of the yield of articles from PMC searches in specific research topics in systematic reviews.
INTRODUCTION:Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB) infections pose a global health threat due to high mortality, rising resistance, and limited treatment options. AREAS COVERED:Worldwide, OXA-type carbapenemases are the predominant mechanism of resistance; other mechanisms, including efflux pumps, porin mutations, and, rarely, metallo-β-lactamases, may contribute to resistance in resistant isolates, complicating management. Despite the different publication dates, both the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) guidance support the use of a combination of at least 2 agents for severe infections, despite a lack of high-quality randomized trial data. Sulbactam/durlobactam is prioritized as the core of treatment in the IDSA guidelines, whereas the ESCMID does not state a preference. Cefiderocol is also a novel cephalosporin suggested for refractory or resistant infections or for those with prior treatment failure, although randomized trial data are inconsistent regarding mortality. Old treatment choices such as carbapenems, polymyxins, and tetracyclines maintain their role as components of a combination treatment in difficult-to-treat infections from CRAB. EXPERT OPINION:There is a need to reinforce infection prevention and control measures, conduct further research on novel antibiotics and rapid, accurate diagnostic tests, and obtain high-quality data to support current practice.
Sulopenem is a recently approved penem (in its oral formulation) by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for adult women with uncomplicated urinary tract infections that have limited or no other available therapeutic options. In this systematic review, we evaluated sulopenem resistance in Gram-negative and Gram-positive pathogens using the most recent published data. Six resources, including Embase, Google Scholar, PubMed Central (PMC), PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, were used to identify relevant articles. The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) range, MIC50, MIC90, and resistance proportions were evaluated. After screening 477 articles, 11 studies were selected, comprising 9,768 isolates. Sulopenem demonstrated favorable activity against Enterobacterales and Proteus mirabilis, as well as good activity against methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus and Klebsiella species. Limited activity was observed against Enterococcus species, and no activity against methicillin-resistant S. aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Regarding Escherichia coli, the maximum MIC was < 0.25 mg/L in 5 of 9 (56
