Trial reportAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2017
Clinical Response of Tedizolid versus Linezolid in Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections by Severity Measure Using a Pooled Analysis from Two Phase 3 Double-Blind Trials.
Trial report in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 9 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.
A Phase 3 Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter Study Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of 6-Day Oral TR-701 Free Acid and 10-Day Oral Linezolid for the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections
A Phase 3 Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter Study Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of IV to Oral 6-Day TR-701 Free Acid and IV to Oral 10-Day Linezolid for the Treatment of ABSSSI
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy and Safety of Tedizolid Phosphate versus Linezolid in a Randomized Phase 3 Trial in Patients with Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infection.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2019Trial
- Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Tedizolid.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2022Review
- Novel Antifungal Agents and Their Activity againstJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Considerations and Caveats in Combating ESKAPE Pathogens against Nosocomial Infections.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2020Review
- Tedizolid Versus Linezolid for the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
- Treatment Duration and Associated Outcomes for Skin and Soft Tissue Infections in Patients With Obesity or Heart Failure.Open forum infectious diseases · 2019Article
- Tedizolid phosphate for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections: an evidence-based review of its place in therapy.Core evidence · 2019Article
- Real-Life Evidence for Tedizolid Phosphate in the Treatment of Cellulitis and Wound Infections: A Case Series.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2018Article
- Treatment of severe skin and soft tissue infections: a review.Current opinion in infectious diseases · 2018Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Tedizolid phosphate is approved for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). In a pooled analysis of 1,333 ABSSSI patients from the ESTABLISH clinical trials, treatment with tedizolid or linezolid demonstrated similar early and posttherapy clinical responses in nonsevere and severe disease, irrespective of the parameters used to measure ABSSSI severity. Shorter 6-day treatment of ABSSSI, including those that were severe, with tedizolid phosphate demonstrated efficacy comparable to that of 10-day treatment with linezolid. (The ESTABLISH studies discussed in this paper have been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under identifiers NCT01170221 and NCT01421511.).
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.