SynthesisBMC infectious diseases2024
Efficacy and safety of omadacycline for treating complicated skin and soft tissue infections: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in BMC infectious diseases, 2024. 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Omadacycline for community-acquired infections: A systematic review and single-arm meta-analysisBiomedica : revista del Instituto Nacional de Salud · 2026Pooled it
- Clinical Experience with Omadacycline for the Treatment of Diabetic Foot Infections and Acute Osteomyelitis.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2026Article
- Methicillin-resistantiScience · 2026Review
- Omadacycline - Associated Anticardiolipin Antibody Positivity and Hypercoagulable State: A Case Report and Review of Tetracycline - Induced Immune Dysregulation.Infection and drug resistance · 2026Article
- Omadacycline Pharmacokinetics: Characteristics, Contributing Factors, and Clinical Significance.Drugs in R&D · 2025Review
- The future approach for the management of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections.Current opinion in infectious diseases · 2025Review
- Omadacycline for Diverse Infections in China: A Real-World Analysis of Efficacy and Safety.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2024Article
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
Abstract
objectiveIn the present study, we aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of omadacycline (OMC) with its comparators for the treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTIs) in adult patients.
methodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating OMC for cSSTIs were searched in databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Clinical Trial, up to July 2022. The primary outcomes were clinical efficacy and microbiological response, with secondary outcome was safety.
resultsFour RCTs consisting of 1,757 patients were included, with linezolid (LZD) as a comparator drug. For clinical efficacy, OMC was not inferior to LZD in the modified intent-to-treat (MITT) (OR: 1.24, 95% Cl: [0.93, 1.66], P = 0.15) and clinically evaluable (CE) populations (OR: 1.92, 95% Cl: [0.94, 3.92], P = 0.07). For microbiological response, OMC was numerically higher than LZD in the microbiologically evaluable (ME) (OR: 1.74, 95% Cl: [0.81, 3.74], P = 0.16) and microbiological MITT (micro-MITT) populations (OR: 1.27, 95% Cl: [0.92, 1.76], P = 0.14). No significant difference was found in subpopulations of monomicrobial or polymicrobial mixed infection populations. The mortality and adverse event rates were similar between OMC and LZD.
conclusionsOMC was as good as LZD in terms of clinical efficacy and microbiological response, and has similar safety issues in treating cSSTIs. OMC might be a promising option for treating cSSTIs in adult patients.
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.