SynthesisBMC infectious diseases2025
Omadacycline for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC infectious diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Single Point Mutation in GraS Drives Co-Evolution of Vancomycin Resistance and Virulence inMicroorganisms · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFew studies have compared the efficacy and safety of omadacycline with other treatments for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). Therefore, updated meta-analyses on this topic is necessary.
methodsWe conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare omadacycline with other anti-MRSA antibiotics. A systematic search of seven databases was undertaken to identify eligible RCTs enrolling adults with ABSSSI. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of the included studies and three reviewers independently extracted data from all manuscripts. All meta-analyses were performed using R software.
resultsOur NMA included 39 RCTs with a total of 20,862 patients with ABSSSI. Eighteen anti-MRSA antibiotics were analyzed in the NMA. In terms of early clinical response, omadacycline was comparable to oxazolidinones like linezolid, tedizolid, and contezolid. Across various populations, including the intention-to-treat (ITT), modified ITT, and clinically evaluable populations, omadacycline showed higher or comparable clinical success rates, although these results were of borderline statistical significance. The results showed that omadacycline ranked first in efficacy among 18 antibiotics, based on surface under the cumulative ranking curve values. Additionally, omadacycline had significantly fewer serious adverse events than telavancin and demonstrated a safety profile comparable to other antibiotics.
conclusionsOur findings indicate that omadacycline is a promising treatment option for ABSSSI, demonstrating efficacy that is comparable to or potentially superior to many other anti-MRSA agents, along with a favorable safety profile. However, these results should be interpreted with caution due to the study's inherent limitations.
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.