ReviewTherapeutics and clinical risk management2016
Efficacy and safety of daptomycin for skin and soft tissue infections: a systematic review with trial sequential analysis.
Review in Therapeutics and clinical risk management, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- A narrative overview of Staphylococcus haemolyticus: resistance traits, virulence factors, and health impact.Molecular biology reports · 2025Review
- Clinical Impact ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Role of Daptomycin in Cutaneous Wound Healing: A Narrative Review.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Vancomycin, Linezolid, Tedizolid, and Daptomycin in Treating Patients with Suspected or Proven Complicated Skin and Soft Tissue Infections: An Updated Network Meta-Analysis.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2021Article
- Highly Sensitive Fluorescence Detection of Daptomycin in Murine Samples through Derivatization with 2,3-Naphthalenedialdehyde.Analytical sciences : the international journal of the Japan Society for Analytical Chemistry · 2020Article
- Fluid resuscitation in critically ill patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSkin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) are significant indications for antibiotic treatment. Daptomycin, a novel antibiotic, has been registered and licensed to be used in the treatment of these infections. However, its efficacy and safety remain controversial.
objectiveThe objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review with trial sequential analysis (TSA) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of daptomycin for the treatment of SSTIs and to analyze whether the available sample size has been large enough and is conclusive.
methodsPubMed, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE were searched for published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared daptomycin with other antibiotics in adult patients with SSTIs up to February 2016.
resultsThis meta-analysis included eight randomized controlled trials (n=2,002). There was no difference in either the clinical success rate (intention-to-treat population: relative risk [RR] =1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] =0.99-1.10,
conclusionDaptomycin and comparator drugs are equally efficacious with regard to clinical and microbiological success for patients with SSTIs, and TSA showed that no additional randomized controlled trials are required. Although daptomycin is a good alternative when other antibiotics are contraindicated for patients with SSTIs and it can serve as a first-line treatment for SSTIs, clinicians should be aware of potential adverse events, such as daptomycin-induced acute eosinophilic pneumonia and creatine phosphokinase, when treating patients with daptomycin.
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.