ArticleBMC infectious diseases2022
Comparison of mortality and clinical failure rates between vancomycin and teicoplanin in patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus pneumonia.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2022. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical outcomes of empirical anti-MRSA therapy at a tertiary care center in Madinah, Saudi Arabia: a retrospective single-center cohort study.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- A rare occurrence of Vancomycin-induced gastrointestinal hemorrhage without thrombocytopenia: a case report and literature review.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVery few studies have compared the effects and side effects of vancomycin and teicoplanin in patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus pneumonia. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of vancomycin and teicoplanin in patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus pneumonia.
methodsThis study examined 116 patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus pneumonia who met the inclusion criteria and were treated with either vancomycin (n = 54) or teicoplanin (n = 62). The primary (i.e., clinical failure during treatment) and secondary outcomes (i.e., mortality rates, discontinuation of study drugs due to treatment failure, side effects, and clinical cure) were evaluated.
resultsThe vancomycin group presented lower clinical failure rates (25.9% vs. 61.3%, p < 0.001), discontinuation due to treatment failure (22.2% vs. 41.9%, p = 0.024), and mortality rates (3.7% vs 19.4%, p = 0.010). The Cox proportional hazard model revealed that teicoplanin was a significant clinical failure predictor compared with vancomycin (adjusted odds ratio, 2.198; 95% confidence interval 1.163-4.154). The rates of drug change due to side effects were higher in the vancomycin group than in the teicoplanin group (24.1% vs. 1.6%, p < 0.001).
conclusionsVancomycin presented favorable treatment outcomes and more side effects compared with teicoplanin, which suggests that clinicians would need to consider the efficacy and potential side effects of these drugs before prescription.
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.