Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34143418›Full record

ArticleInfectious diseases and therapy2021

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.

Jingjuan Feng, Feng Xiang, Jian Cheng, Yeli Gou, Jun Li

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Infectious diseases and therapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Methicillin-ResistantMicroorganisms · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jingjuan Feng *School of Clinical Medical Sciences, Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, 646000, Sichuan, China.
Feng Xiang *Department of Chinese Medicine Surgery, Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, 610072, Sichuan, China.
Jian ChengDepartment of Chinese Medicine Surgery, Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, 610072, Sichuan, China.
Yeli GouDepartment of Chinese Medicine Surgery, Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, 610072, Sichuan, China.
Jun LiSchool of Clinical Medical Sciences, Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, 646000, Sichuan, China. junli2002@126.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8828-5594
University of Electronic Science and Technology of China · CNSouthwest Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSkin and soft structure infections (SSTIs) caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) pose serious health risks and cause significant cost burdens, and a conclusive recommendation about antibiotics has not yet been generated. Therefore, we performed this updated network meta-analysis to determine the preferred drug for the treatment of MRSA-caused SSTIs.

methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library to identify any potentially eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the comparative efficacy and safety of any two of vancomycin, linezolid, tedizolid, and daptomycin in MRSA-caused SSTIs. All statistical analyses were conducted with RevMan, ADDIS, and STATA software.

resultsTwenty eligible RCTs involving 7804 patients were included for the final analysis. Direct meta-analysis suggested that linezolid was superior to vancomycin in improving clinical (odds ratio [OR], 1.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-1.99; P = 0.02) and microbiological (OR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.24-2.86; P = 0.003) success, which were all confirmed by network meta-analyses. No statistical differences were identified regarding other comparisons. Meanwhile, there were no significant differences between any two antibiotics related to safety. Moreover, ranking probabilities indicated that linezolid had the highest probability of being ranked best in terms of clinical and microbiological success.

conclusionBased on the limited evidence, linezolid may be a preferred antibiotic for the treatment of MRSA-caused SSTIs because it showed superiority in clinical and microbiological success without difference regarding safety.

Indexed as

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureusNetwork meta-analysisSkin and soft tissue infectionSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID34143418
PMCPMC8322192
OpenAlexW3171950560

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.