Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus toxic shock syndrome.

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Genomic characterization of non-CC398 methicillin-resistantFrontiers in public health · 2026
   Article
2. The molecular evidence of toxic shock syndrome toxin-1 on methicillin-resistantOpen veterinary journal · 2025
   Article
3. Postpartum Methicillin-ResistantCase reports in obstetrics and gynecology · 2018
   Article
4. Rely and Toxic Shock Syndrome: a technological health crisis.The Yale journal of biology and medicine · 2011
   Review
5. Staphylococcal toxic shock syndrome 2000-2006: epidemiology, clinical features, and molecular characteristics.PloS one · 2011
   Article
6. In vitro activities of ceftobiprole, tigecycline, daptomycin, and 19 other antimicrobials against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains from a national survey of Belgian hospitals.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2006
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Erratum issued

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as