ArticleBMC infectious diseases2026
Clinical outcomes of empirical anti-MRSA therapy at a tertiary care center in Madinah, Saudi Arabia: a retrospective single-center cohort study.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2026. 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
backgroundMethicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is highly prevalent in Saudi Arabia, posing a significant clinical challenge. International guidelines recommend empirical anti-MRSA coverage for high-risk patients. This study aimed to describe the real-world use of empirical anti-MRSA therapies and explore associated clinical outcomes among hospitalized adults at a single tertiary center in Saudi Arabia.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of 323 adult patients who received empirical intravenous anti-MRSA therapy (linezolid, vancomycin, or teicoplanin) between June 2021 and June 2025. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. Secondary endpoints included clinical improvement, length of stay, adverse events, and changes in laboratory measures. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors of mortality.
resultsThe cohort had a mean age of 70.97 years, and 51.70% had started empirical anti-MRSA during ICU stay. Overall, the in-hospital mortality rate was 39.01%. Mortality rates did not differ significantly between treatment groups: 42.57% for linezolid, 35.82% for vancomycin, and 57.89% for teicoplanin (p = 0.121). Changes in C-reactive protein varied significantly (p = 0.009), with levels decreasing in the linezolid and vancomycin groups but increasing in the small teicoplanin group. Vancomycin was associated with a higher reported incidence of acute kidney injury than linezolid and teicoplanin (3.00% vs. 0.99% and 0.00%, respectively). In multivariable analysis, older age (OR 1.05, p < 0.001) and male sex (OR 1.81, p = 0.032) were significant risk factors for mortality. Non-ICU admission was associated with a lower mortality rate (OR 0.45, p = 0.004).
conclusionIn this real-world cohort of patients receiving empirical anti-MRSA therapy, we found no significant difference in in-hospital mortality or clinical improvement between linezolid, vancomycin, and teicoplanin. Patient outcomes were primarily driven by underlying factors like age and illness severity rather than the choice of antibiotics. Vancomycin was associated with a higher incidence of reported acute kidney injury. The findings highlight the need for improved antimicrobial stewardship to guide appropriate empirical therapy.
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.