Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19596875›Full record

SynthesisAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2009

Comparative efficacy and safety of vancomycin versus teicoplanin: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Shuli Svetitsky, Leonard Leibovici, Mical Paul

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04176328 (An Open-label, Dose-escalation Study to Evaluate the Pharmacokinetics of Inhaled Teicoplanin in Cystic Fibrosis Patients), which is not on this map. Cited by 98 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
98citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT04176328 phase1completednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

An Open-label, Dose-escalation Study to Evaluate the Pharmacokinetics of Inhaled Teicoplanin in Cystic Fibrosis Patients

TypeinterventionalSponsorNeupharma SrlRan2019 to 2020Enrolled12ConditionsCystic FibrosisArmsTeicoplanin Sandoz 200 mg powder and solvent for solution for injection or infusion or oral solution.
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

98 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 276 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Guideline
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Clinical outcomes of teicoplanin for Corynebacterium species bacteremia: A retrospective observational study.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

38 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Shuli SvetitskySackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel.
Leonard Leibovici
Mical Paul
Rabin Medical Center · ILTel Aviv University · IL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vancomycin and teicoplanin are the glycopeptides currently in use for the treatment of infections caused by invasive beta-lactam-resistant gram-positive organisms. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that have compared vancomycin and teicoplanin administered systemically for the treatment of suspected or proven infections. A comprehensive search of trials without year, language, or publication status restrictions was performed. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Two reviewers independently extracted the data. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled by using the fixed-effect model (RRs of >1 favor vancomycin). Twenty-four trials were included. All-cause mortality was similar overall (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.21), and there was no significant heterogeneity. In trials that used adequate allocation concealment, the results favored teicoplanin (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.06), while in trials with unknown methods or inadequate concealment, the results favored vancomycin (RR, 3.61; 95% CI, 1.27 to 10.30). The latter trials might have recruited more severely ill patients. No other variable affected the RRs for mortality, including the assessment of glycopeptides administered empirically or for proven infections, neutropenia, the participant's age, and drug dosing. There were no significant differences between teicoplanin and vancomycin with regard to clinical failure (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.05), microbiological failure (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.65), and other efficacy outcomes. Lower RRs (in favor of teicoplanin) for clinical failure were observed with a lower risk of bias and when treatment was initiated for infections caused by gram-positive organisms rather than empirically. Total adverse events (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.74), nephrotoxicity (RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.61), and red man syndrome were significantly less frequent with teicoplanin. Teicoplanin is not inferior to vancomycin with regard to efficacy and is associated with a lower adverse event rate than vancomycin.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsBacterial Infectionsbeta-LactamsFemaleHumansMaleTeicoplaninVancomycinAnti-Bacterial Agentsbeta-LactamsTeicoplaninVancomycin

Identifiers

PMID19596875
PMCPMC2764163
OpenAlexW1995854195

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.