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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Epidemiology and Outcomes of Health-care–Associated Pneumonia
Kollef, M. H., Shorr, A., Tabak, Y. P., Gupta, V., Liu, L. Z., & Johannes, R. S. (2005) · Chest · doi:10.1378/chest.128.6.3854 · Cited by 948
Self-citationTrends in Infectious Diseases Mortality in the United States
Pinner, R. W. (1996) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03530270029027 · Cited by 487
Health Care–Associated Invasive MRSA Infections, 2005-2008
Kallen, A. J. (2010) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2010.1115 · Cited by 439
Cited by
Tong, S. Y. C., Davis, J. S., Eichenberger, E., Holland, T. L., & Fowler, V. G. (2015) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.00134-14 · Cited by 5,192
Kalil, A. C., Metersky, M. L., Klompas, M., Muscedere, J., Sweeney, D. A., Palmer, L. B., Napolitano, L. M., O'Grady, N. P., Bartlett, J. G., Carratalà, J., et al. (2016) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/cid/ciw353 · Cited by 3,892
Acute kidney injury-epidemiology, outcomes and economics
Rewa, O., & Bagshaw, S. M. (2014) · Nature Reviews Nephrology · doi:10.1038/nrneph.2013.282 · Cited by 734
Linezolid: a review of its properties, function, and use in critical care
Hashemian, S. M., Farhadi, T., & Ganjparvar, M. (2018) · Drug Design, Development and Therapy · doi:10.2147/dddt.s164515 · Cited by 459
Barbier, F., Andremont, A., Wolff, M., & Bouadma, L. (2013) · Current Opinion in Pulmonary Medicine · doi:10.1097/mcp.0b013e32835f27be · Cited by 281
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
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- 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.