Comparison 3. Piperaciilin‐tazobactam vs. other.

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 All‐cause mortality	8	1314	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.56 [0.34, 0.92]
1.1 cefepime	3	755	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.66 [0.32, 1.34]
1.2 carbapenem	4	398	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.46 [0.22, 0.95]
1.3 ceftazidime	1	161	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.85 [0.05, 13.36]
2 All‐cause mortality ‐ sensitivity analysis allocation concealment	8	1314	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.56 [0.34, 0.92]
2.1 adequate	2	689	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.55 [0.25, 1.23]
2.2 unclear	4	399	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.50 [0.25, 0.99]
2.3 inadequate	2	226	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.91 [0.18, 20.51]
3 Infection related mortality	8	1187	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.62 [0.29, 1.34]
3.1 cefepime	5	849	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.63 [0.28, 1.45]
3.2 carbapenem	2	177	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.37 [0.02, 8.77]
3.3 ceftazidime	1	161	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.85 [0.05, 13.36]
4 Clinical failure	11	1676	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.97 [0.89, 1.06]
4.1 cefepime	5	849	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.89 [0.79, 1.01]
4.2 carbapenem	5	666	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.08 [0.93, 1.24]
4.3 ceftazidime	1	161	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.06 [0.75, 1.48]
5 Clinical failure ‐ sensitivity analysis allocation concealment	11	1726	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.96 [0.88, 1.05]
5.1 adequate	3	921	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.98 [0.86, 1.10]
5.2 unclear	5	535	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.95 [0.84, 1.08]
5.3 inadequate	3	270	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.96 [0.70, 1.32]
6 Microbiological failure	6	290	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.12 [0.89, 1.41]
6.1 cefepime	3	127	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.50 [0.73, 3.11]
6.2 carbapenem	2	69	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.92 [0.74, 1.14]
6.3 ceftazidime	1	94	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.20 [0.78, 1.85]
7 Any modifications	7	611	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.02 [0.88, 1.19]
7.1 cefepime	3	271	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.03 [0.79, 1.33]
7.2 carbapenem	3	179	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.00 [0.82, 1.22]
7.3 ceftazidime	1	161	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.06 [0.75, 1.48]
8 Glycopeptide addition	7	939	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.94 [0.79, 1.12]
8.1 cefepime	3	422	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.86 [0.60, 1.24]
8.2 carbapenem	3	356	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.93 [0.74, 1.18]
8.3 ceftazidime	1	161	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.06 [0.75, 1.48]
9 Antifungal drug addition	5	533	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.21 [0.93, 1.58]
9.1 cefepime	2	177	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.08 [0.60, 1.93]
9.2 carbapenem	3	356	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.26 [0.94, 1.70]
10 Adverse events ‐ any	4	406	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.39 [0.24, 0.65]
10.1 cefepime	1	50	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.5 [0.05, 5.17]
10.2 carbapenem	3	356	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.39 [0.23, 0.65]
11 Adverse events requiring discontinuation	5	636	Risk Difference (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.00 [‐0.02, 0.01]
11.1 cefepime	4	537	Risk Difference (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.00 [‐0.02, 0.02]
11.2 carbapenem	1	99	Risk Difference (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [‐0.04, 0.04]