ReviewInfection
A survey of the use of teicoplanin in patients with haematological malignancies and solid tumours.
Review in Infection. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
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
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A significant number of open and comparative studies have now addressed the use of teicoplanin in the treatment of documented or presumed infection in patients with haematological and non-haematological malignancy. Available evidence suggests that teicoplanin is an effective agent against such infections, with an excellent safety profile. The use of teicoplanin and vancomycin may be justified as part of the initial management of clinically infected right atrial catheters in patients with malignancy. The first-line use of glycopeptides may also be appropriate in units where streptococcal and methicillin resistant staphylococcal infections are prevalent. However, such a policy should be reviewed regularly. Except in the above situations, a delay in the introduction of either teicoplanin or vancomycin in cancer patients does not appear to produce any excess mortality, but there may be some additional morbidity in terms of fever and malaise. The introduction of glycopeptides as second-line agents is indicated for sensitive, microbiologically documented infections and for patients who have not responded to empirical, first-line therapy. Non-inpatient treatment with teicoplanin is an area of ongoing interest and may be justified on both humanitarian and pharmacoeconomic grounds. The use of glycopeptides in the prophylactic setting remains controversial and should be avoided while the emergence of resistance, particularly in enterococci, should be monitored closely.
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.