ArticleInfection and drug resistance2026
Adult Empyema Caused by Refractory Methicillin-Resistant
Article in Infection and drug resistance, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The pathogenesis and treatment of pulmonary lesions caused by methicillin-resistant Case Series: Two adult cases of MRSA empyema were treated using linezolid (LZD) because they were refractory to the glycopeptides vancomycin (VCM) and teicoplanin (TEIC). Case 1 was a 50-year-old man with a history of lung cancer and pneumothorax who was admitted with pulmonary empyema with a severe dry cough. MRSA empyema was diagnosed because only MRSA was detected by video-assisted thoracoscopy (VATS) from his effusions. He was initially treated using VCM for 10 days, but his inflammatory markers and condition did not so improve; therefore, VCM was switched to LZD. His condition improved with LZD for 14 days. Case 2 was a 77-year-old man with pharyngeal cancer who was admitted with respiratory failure. He was diagnosed with MRSA empyema because only MRSA was detected from his pleural effusions on pleural drainage. He received a TEIC drip infusion for 10 days, but his respiratory status did not so improve; therefore, his treatment was switched to LZD. His condition improved with LZD for 14 days. Conclusion: MRSA empyema was diagnosed in these two cases because only MRSA was detected from pleural effusions. Both patients finally improved following the switch from glycopeptide antibiotics to LZD. These findings suggest MRSA as the true cause of the infections and that LZD, rather than VCM and TEIC, might be effective in cases of MRSA empyema.
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.