ArticleMaedica2018
Efficacy of Dalbavancin and Telavancin in the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections.
Article in Maedica, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Comparative Review of the Pharmacology of Dalbavancin and Oritavancin for Gram-Positive Infections: Birds of a Feather or Apples and Oranges?Infectious diseases and therapy · 2025Review
- The efficacy of dalbavancin and impact on hospitalization and treatment costs in patients with ABSSSI.Global & regional health technology assessmentReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTwo glycopeptide analogues, such as dalbavancin and telavancin, with improved pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic parameters have been developed. These two glycopeptide analogues are approved by Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treatment of various Gram-positive bacterial skin infections. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe have conducted an open labelled prospective randomized study to compare the efficacy of these two drugs. A total of 200 patients diagnosed with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) were recruited for the study. They were randomized to receive either a single dose of dalbavancin 1500 mg i.v (Group I) or telavancin 10 mg/kg intravenously (i.v.) every 24 hours for six days (Group II). The skin infection rating score (SIRS) was calculated on Day 0 for all patients at the time of diagnosis. Signs and symptoms of the lesions were assessed based on the following factors: blistering, exudate/pus, erythema/inflammation and itching/pain. Each factor was classified as one of the following: absent - 0, minimal - 1, moderate - 2 and severe - 3.
resultsClinically successful treatment was defined as complete resolution of clinically meaningful signs and symptoms of infection, including SIRS score of 0. The outcome measure was the percentage of patients with SIRS score of 0 on day 7 (clinical success). The third most common diagnosis at baseline was impetigo (13% in both groups). Patients who received dalbavancin had a higher clinical success rate than those receiving telavancin.
conclusionFindings of the present study show that single i.v dose of dalbavancin is better than telavancin repeated doses in treatment of ABSSSI.
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.