Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25355172›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2015

Linezolid versus vancomycin for the treatment of suspected methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nosocomial pneumonia: a systematic review employing meta-analysis.

Yan Wang, Yamin Zou, Jiao Xie, Taotao Wang, Xiaowei Zheng, Hairong He, Weihua Dong, Jianfeng Xing, Yalin Dong

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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.

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

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Efficacy and Safety of Continuous vs Intermittent Linezolid Infusion in Critically Ill Patients with Septic Shock.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2024
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Effectiveness, safety, and cost of vancomycin and linezolid in Kuwait: A retrospective cohort study.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Linezolid-ResistantFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Yan WangDepartment of Pharmacy, The First Affiliated Hospital of Medical College, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, 710061, China.
Yamin Zou
Jiao Xie
Taotao Wang
Xiaowei Zheng
Hairong He
Weihua Dong
Jianfeng Xing
Yalin Dong
First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University · CNSecond Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University · CNXi'an Jiaotong University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe optimal therapy involving linezolid or vancomycin for suspected methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) nosocomial pneumonia (NP) remains controversial. This study compared the efficacy and safety of linezolid and vancomycin therapies in patients with NP.

methodsA systematic review of randomized controlled trials with meta-analyses performed by searching PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We screened for relevant randomized controlled studies in which patients with NP were enrolled and linezolid and vancomycin therapies were compared.

resultsNine trials involving 2618 pneumonia patients were reviewed. Linezolid was not found to be superior to vancomycin for clinical cure when categories of pathogen were not considered and in a subgroup of NP patients with MRSA infection [relative risk (RR)=1.16, 95 % confidence interval (CI)=0.95-1.43, P=0.15]. Compared with vancomycin, linezolid has no difference in the overall microbiological eradication rate (RR=1.12, 95 % CI=0.96-1.30, P=0.15) and specific MRSA eradication rate (RR=1.16, 95 % CI=0.93-1.45, P=0.19) in NP patients. In addition, nephrotoxicity was more frequent with vancomycin (RR=0.50, 95 % CI=0.31-0.81, P=0.005), but no differences between the treatments were found for all-cause mortality, thrombocytopenia, gastrointestinal effects, and drug discontinuation due to adverse events.

conclusionThese results suggest that linezolid is not superior to vancomycin with respect to both clinical and microbiological cure rates in patients with MRSA NP.

Indexed as

AcetamidesAnti-Bacterial AgentsCross InfectionHumansLinezolidMethicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureusOxazolidinonesPneumoniaRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicStaphylococcal InfectionsTreatment OutcomeVancomycinAcetamidesAnti-Bacterial AgentsLinezolidOxazolidinonesVancomycin

Identifiers

PMID25355172
OpenAlexW2080114312

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.