Evidence map›Paper›PMID 9474479›Full record

ReviewDrugs1997

Anti-gram-positive agents. What we have and what we would like.

R N Grüneberg

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Drugs, 1997. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Trial
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

R N GrünebergDepartment of Microbiology, University College London Hospitals, England.
University College Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The usefulness of many anti-Gram-positive antibiotics is being compromised by the spread of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. The most reliable agents for serious infections are the glycopeptide agents vancomycin and teicoplanin. The appropriate maintenance dosage for teicoplanin in serious infections is 6 mg/kg/day, i.e. usually 400 mg/day. There are 3 exceptions for which the daily maintenance dosage should be 12 mg/kg/day and these are intravenous drug abusers, septic arthritis (but not osteomyelitis), and Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis treated with teicoplanin monotherapy. When teicoplanin is given at these doses, it achieves clinical and bacteriological results that are equivalent to those obtained with vancomycin, irrespective of pathogen or type of infection. The toxicity profile favours teicoplanin over vancomycin, especially when other, potentially toxic, drugs are coadministered. Teicoplanin also has an advantage in terms of ease and convenience of administration, which, together with its lack of need for routine blood level monitoring, facilitates its use outside hospital. New agents hold some promise for the future; however, oral agents, if developed, could present the risk of being overused, which might compromise their long term utility.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsClinical Trials as TopicDrug Resistance, MultipleEnterococcusGram-Positive Bacterial InfectionsHumansStaphylococcusStreptococcusTeicoplaninAnti-Bacterial AgentsTeicoplanin

Identifiers

PMID9474479
OpenAlexW1989334784

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.