CRD Summary: Doripenem appeared to be non-inferior in Phase III trials to meropenem for the treatment of intra-abdominal infections, levofloxacin for urinary tract infections, and imipenem and piperacillin/tazobactam for nosocomial pneumonia. However, the reliability of the review methods and data were unclear, so the authors' findings may not be valid and should be interpreted with caution.

CRD Commentary: This review did not define specific inclusion criteria for study design, population, intervention or outcome beyond those implied by the review title and aim. Searches were carried out to look for both published and unpublished data, however, relevant studies may have been missed through the inclusion of only English language studies and the review is at risk from language bias. The searches were also limited by date without justification, but this was likely to be due to the introduction of the drug into clinical practice. The reliability of the review methods was unclear, as the methods of the review were not reported. There also appeared to be no assessment of study validity, so it was difficult to assess the reliability of the data. The authors reported carrying out a subgroup analysis according to study quality. Given the differences in comparators and populations between the included studies, a narrative summary of the review findings appeared appropriate. Some study details and data were summarised in a table. A further table summarising the population characteristics would have been helpful. Outcomes were reported according to intention to treat and per protocol analysis of those patients who were clinically and microbiologically evaluable, thereby providing both conservative and more optimistic summaries of the relative effectiveness of doripenem and its comparators. In addition, all of the studies were carried out recently and so were likely to reflect the susceptibility of currently circulating bacterial strains. In each case the review findings were based on single studies for each comparison, so the reliability of the findings was unclear. Overall, the reliability of the review methods and the data was unclear, so the authors' findings may not be valid and should be interpreted with caution.