Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 570

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Linezolid in Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Nosocomial Pneumonia: A Randomized, Controlled Study

Open access
Wunderink, R. G., Niederman, M. S., Kollef, M. H., Shorr, A. F., Kunkel, M. J., Baruch, A., McGee, W. T., Reisman, A., Chastre, J.·2012·Clinical Infectious Diseases

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Post hoc analyses of clinical trial data suggested that linezolid may be more effective than vancomycin for treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) nosocomial pneumonia. This study prospectively assessed efficacy and safety of linezolid, compared with a dose-optimized vancomycin regimen, for treatment of MRSA nosocomial pneumonia. METHODS: This was a prospective, double-blind, controlled, multicenter trial involving hospitalized adult patients with hospital-acquired or healthcare-associated MRSA pneumonia. Patients were randomized to receive intravenous linezolid (600 mg every 12 hours) or vancomycin (15 mg/kg every 12 hours) for 7-14 days. Vancomycin dose was adjusted on the basis of trough levels. The primary end point was clinical outcome at end of study (EOS) in evaluable per-protocol (PP) patients. Prespecified secondary end points included response in the modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population at end of treatment (EOT) and EOS and microbiologic response in the PP and mITT populations at EOT and EOS. Survival and safety were also evaluated. RESULTS: Of 1184 patients treated, 448 (linezolid, n = 224; vancomycin, n = 224) were included in the mITT and 348 (linezolid, n = 172; vancomycin, n = 176) in the PP population. In the PP population, 95 (57.6%) of 165 linezolid-treated patients and 81 (46.6%) of 174 vancomycin-treated patients achieved clinical success at EOS (95% confidence interval for difference, 0.5%-21.6%; P = .042). All-cause 60-day mortality was similar (linezolid, 15.7%; vancomycin, 17.0%), as was incidence of adverse events. Nephrotoxicity occurred more frequently with vancomycin (18.2%; linezolid, 8.4%). CONCLUSIONS: For the treatment of MRSA nosocomial pneumonia, clinical response at EOS in the PP population was significantly higher with linezolid than with vancomycin, although 60-day mortality was similar.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/cid/cir895

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 570

Metadata

Authors
Wunderink, R. G., Niederman, M. S., Kollef, M. H., Shorr, A. F., Kunkel, M. J., Baruch, A., McGee, W. T., Reisman, A., & Chastre, J.
Venue
Clinical Infectious Diseases
Published
2012-01-12
Volume
54
Issue
5
Pages
621-629
ISSN
  • 1058-4838 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-6591
OpenAlex
W2125096244
Cited by
570
References
3
FWCI
50.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Linezolid in Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Nosocomial Pneumonia: A Randomized, Controlled Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/cid/cir895
The paper
Wunderink, R. G., Niederman, M. S., Kollef, M. H., Shorr, A. F., Kunkel, M. J., Baruch, A., McGee, W. T., Reisman, A., & Chastre, J. (2012). Linezolid in Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Nosocomial Pneumonia: A Randomized, Controlled Study. Clinical Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cir895

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.