ReviewDrugs2012
Antibacterials as adjuncts to incision and drainage for adults with purulent methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) skin infections.
Review in Drugs, 2012. 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, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Community-associated methicillin-resistantCanadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2017Review
- Review
- Complete genome of Staphylococcus aureus phage SA11.Journal of virology · 2012Article
- Treatment failure and costs in patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) skin and soft tissue infections: a South Texas Ambulatory Research Network (STARNet) study.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFMObservational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The annual incidence of skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) has nearly tripled in the US since the early 1990s. Many purulent SSTIs in the community setting are caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Incision and drainage (I&D) are indicated for most purulent MRSA infections; however, the use of adjunctive antibacterials is controversial. The objective of this study was to systematically evaluate studies that have investigated whether or not antibacterials provide added benefit to I&D alone for purulent MRSA SSTIs. We included articles from MEDLINE and The Cochrane Library that fulfilled the following criteria: (i) original research; (ii) English language; (iii) compared I&D alone versus I&D plus antibacterials for purulent MRSA SSTIs; and (iv) compared patient outcomes. We also reviewed the references of these articles to identify other relevant studies. Studies that solely examined paediatric patients were excluded. To facilitate cross-study comparison, we systematically evaluated the following study characteristics: (i) study design; (ii) patient population; (iii) comparator groups; (iv) sample size; (v) outcome measures; (vi) outcome definitions; (vii) duration of follow-up; and (viii) measurement and adjustment of potential confounding variables. Eleven studies, spanning more than 30 years, met inclusion criteria. Two of these were conducted prior to the emergence of MRSA in the community; another evaluated cephalexin versus placebo for MRSA. None of these found added benefit of adjunctive antibacterials. Four studies compared health outcomes between patients who received 'active' or 'appropriate' therapy and those who received 'inactive' or 'inappropriate' therapy after I&D for purulent MRSA SSTIs. Two of these studies found 'active' or 'appropriate' therapy to be beneficial, while two others did not. Four studies compared health outcomes between patients who received anti-MRSA antibacterials plus I&D with those who received alternative antibacterials plus I&D for purulent MRSA SSTIs. Three of these reported improved outcomes with anti-MRSA antibacterials, while another reported mixed findings. Presently, the bulk of the available evidence suggests anti-MRSA antibacterials provide added benefit to I&D alone for purulent MRSA SSTIs; however, the current evidence is limited to small, case-control, observational studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.