The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Linezolid versus vancomycin for Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia: pooled analysis of randomized studies
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare outcomes in patients with Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia treated with linezolid with those of vancomycin-treated patients. METHODS: We pooled and analysed five randomized studies comparing linezolid with vancomycin, focusing on the 144 adults with S. aureus bacteraemia, which was secondary in >70% of patients. Efficacy variables were clinical cure of primary infection, microbiological success (eradication of S. aureus from blood or presumed eradication based on clinical cure of primary infection), survival, and outcome predictors identified by multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 99 clinically evaluable patients, primary infection was cured in 28 (55%) of 51 linezolid recipients and 25 (52%) of 48 vancomycin recipients [odds ratio (OR) for cure with linezolid versus vancomycin, 1.12; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.51-2.47]. There were no between-group differences in the meta-analysis (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.5-2.65). Of 53 evaluable patients with methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) bacteraemia, clinical cure occurred in 14 (56%) of 25 linezolid recipients and 13 (46%) of 28 vancomycin recipients (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 0.50-4.34). Microbiological success occurred in 41 (69%) of 59 linezolid recipients and 41 (73%) of 56 vancomycin recipients (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.37-1.87). Fifty-five (74%) of 74 linezolid recipients survived versus 52 (74%) of 70 vancomycin recipients (OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.47-2.12). In the multivariate analysis, treatment group was not a significant predictor of clinical cure or survival. CONCLUSIONS: Linezolid was associated with outcomes that were not inferior to those of vancomycin in patients with secondary S. aureus bacteraemia.
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
Birmingham, M. C., Rayner, C. R., Meagher, A. K., Flavin, S. M., Batts, D. H., & Schentag, J. J. (2003) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1086/345744 · Cited by 428
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
Waves of resistance: Staphylococcus aureus in the antibiotic era
Chambers, H. F., & DeLeo, F. R. (2009) · Nature Reviews Microbiology · doi:10.1038/nrmicro2200 · Cited by 2,718
Falagas, M. E. (2006) · Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy · doi:10.1093/jac/dkl219 · Cited by 167
Gómez, J., García-Vázquez, E., Baños, R., Canteras, M., Ruiz, J., Baños, V., Herrero, J. A., & Valdés, M. (2007) · European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1007/s10096-007-0272-x · Cited by 81
Metadata
- Authors
- Shorr, A. F., Kunkel, M. J., & Kollef, M.
- Venue
- Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2005-09-29
- Volume
- 56
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 923-929
- ISSN
- 0305-7453 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2091
- OpenAlex
- W2045768636
- Cited by
- 198
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 9.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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 versus vancomycin for Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia: pooled analysis of randomized studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jac/dki355
- The paper
- Shorr, A. F., Kunkel, M. J., & Kollef, M. (2005). Linezolid versus vancomycin for Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia: pooled analysis of randomized studies. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dki355
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.