ArticleTexas Heart Institute journal2010
Comparison of antimicrobial agents as therapy for experimental endocarditis: caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.
Article in Texas Heart Institute journal, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Novel Biocompatible Titanium-Gadolinium Quantum Dot as a Bacterial Detecting Agent with High Antibacterial Activity.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Construction of a Multiplex Promoter Reporter Platform to Monitor Staphylococcus aureus Virulence Gene Expression and the Identification of Usnic Acid as a Potent Suppressor of psm Gene Expression.Frontiers in microbiology · 2016Article
- Engineering a soluble high-affinity receptor domain that neutralizes staphylococcal enterotoxin C in rabbit models of disease.Protein engineering, design & selection : PEDS · 2013Article
- An evidence-based review of linezolid for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): place in therapy.Core evidence · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We used an experimental rat model to compare the therapeutic efficacy of teicoplanin, linezolid, and quinupristin/dalfopristin with that of vancomycin as standard therapy for infective endocarditis.Aortic endocarditis was induced in rats by insertion of a polyethylene catheter into the left ventricle, followed by intravenous inoculation of 106 colony-forming units of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus 24 hours later. Forty-eight hours after bacterial challenge, intravenous antibiotic therapies were initiated. There were 6 groups of 8 rats each: uninfected control; infected, untreated control; vancomycin-treated (40 mg/kg twice daily); teicoplanin-treated (20 mg/kg twice daily after a loading dose of 40 mg/kg); linezolid-treated (75 mg/kg 3 times daily for 1 day, then 75 mg/kg twice daily); and quinupristin/dalfopristin-treated (30 mg/kg twice daily and an additional 10 mg/kg dalfopristin infusion over 6 to 12 hr daily). At the end of therapy, the aortic valve vegetations in the drug-treated rats were evaluated microbiologically.Compared with the infected, untreated group, all drug-treated groups had significantly reduced bacterial titers in the vegetations. Vancomycin, teicoplanin, and quinupristin/dalfopristin all effectively reduced the quantitative bacterial cultures of aortic valve vegetations. In addition, there was no significant difference in the comparative efficacy of teicoplanin, linezolid, and quinupristin/dalfopristin. Vancomycin significantly reduced bacterial counts in comparison with linezolid, which was nonetheless also effective.Our experimental model showed that each of the investigated antimicrobial agents was effective in the treatment of infective endocarditis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20844611PMC2929854W1776655487What OpenQuestion holds
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.