ArticleScientific reports2025
Treatment effect based on antimicrobial resistance in Staphylococcus aureus infections related to orthopedics.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Staphylococcus aureus is a prevalent pathogen in infections related to orthopedics. Here, we report on the antimicrobial resistance and treatment with emphasis on both clinical and microbiological perspectives. We recruited 196 patients with S. aureus isolates. Antimicrobial resistance was described by resistance rates, and multidrug resistance (MDR) was classified according to international standards. Antimicrobial agents were classified as active, untested, or inactive according to the antimicrobial susceptibility tests. The treatment stage was divided into empirical and targeted stages, and effects were classified as first-, second-, or third-grade healing. Resistance rates ranged from 0.0 to 89.2%, and no resistance to vancomycin or linezolid was found. As the signal of methicillin resistance, the incidence of oxacillin resistance was 21.0%. MDR was identified in 84 (42.9%) isolates, not related to gender (p = 0.505) or age (p = 0.459). Cefuroxime and cefazolin were common untested agents, whereas clindamycin and levofloxacin were common active agents used in treatment. Out of the participants, 173 had first-grade healing, 16 had second-grade healing, and 7 had third-grade healing. Of the patients who received active and untested agents, the numbers of patients who had first-, second-, and third-grade healing were 74, 6, and 4 vs. 99, 10, and 3 (p = 0.709), respectively. Among the patients who received untested agents during empirical treatment, 20.9% (28/134) switched to active agents for treatment success. Antimicrobial resistance is a prevalent concern, especially methicillin resistance. Active agents represented by clindamycin and levofloxacin are valuable according to antimicrobial susceptibility tests and clinical practice.
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.