ArticleCureus2021
The Use of Vancomycin Versus Teicoplanin in Treating Febrile Neutropenia: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.
Article in Cureus, 2021. 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.
- Impact of Fungal Co-Infection on Teicoplanin Plasma Trough Concentration in Critically Ill Adults: A Novel Consideration for Dose Adjustment.Drug design, development and therapy · 2025Article
- Dose Optimization of Teicoplanin for Critically Ill Patients With Renal Dysfunction and Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy: Experience From a Prospective Interventional Study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objective The efficacy of vancomycin vs. teicoplanin for the successful treatment of febrile neutropenia (FN) has been a subject of debate in the medical community. In light of this, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare these two medications in the treatment of patients with FN in terms of treatment success and adverse events. Data source and study design We conducted a search of major electronic databases [MEDLINE (PubMed, Ovid), Google Scholar, clinicaltrial.org], which returned 10 studies with 1,630 patients (vancomycin: 788; teicoplanin: 842) for analysis. An unadjusted odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for all studies, as well as separate sub-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective studies. Results The average age of patients ranged from 37 to 57 years in the vancomycin group and 31 to 57 years in the teicoplanin group (n=9 studies). Over half of the patients in both groups were male (vancomycin: 55.6%; teicoplanin: 57.7%; n=9 studies). Both overall evaluation and sub-analyses revealed that both treatments were comparable in terms of treatment success, nephrotoxicity, and red man syndrome. The vancomycin group was more likely to develop skin rashes (OR: 2.49; 95% CI: 1.28-4.83). The heterogeneity for all analyses ranged from 0-47.4%. Conclusion Our analysis showed that vancomycin and teicoplanin showed comparable results in terms of successful treatment of FN. Adverse effects such as nephrotoxicity and red man syndrome were also comparable between the two treatment groups.
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.