The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Continuous versus intermittent infusion of vancomycin for the treatment of Gram-positive infections: systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To summarize available evidence on the effect of continuous infusion (CoI) of vancomycin compared with intermittent infusion (InI) in adult patients with Gram-positive infections. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies that comparatively assessed CoI and InI of vancomycin in terms of mortality, clinical cure, toxicity rates and serum drug exposure [trough concentration (C(min)) for InI and steady-state concentration (C(ss)) for CoI; area under the curve at 24 h (AUC(24)) for both] were included. Meta-analysis was conducted combining and analysing the relative risk (RR) and computing a summary RR of the effects with 95% confidence interval (CI). The standardized mean difference was calculated for continuous outcomes. The I(2) test was calculated to assess heterogeneity across studies. RESULTS: One RCT and five observational studies were included in the analysis. Compared with InI, CoI of vancomycin was associated with a significantly lower risk of nephrotoxicity (RR 0.6, 95% CI 0.4-0.9, P = 0.02; I(2)= 0). Overall mortality was not different between the two groups (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.7-1.6, P = 0.9; I(2)= 0). CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis suggests that administration of vancomycin for the treatment of Gram-positive infections by CoI is associated with a significantly lower risk of nephrotoxicity when compared with InI of the drug. RCTs are needed to define the impact on mortality rate and on the pharmacodynamic activity in terms of AUC/MIC ratio.
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
Randomized, Controlled Trials, Observational Studies, and the Hierarchy of Research Designs
Concato, J., Shah, N., & Horwitz, R. I. (2000) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm200006223422507 · Cited by 3,563
Rybak, M., Lomaestro, B., Rotschafer, J. C., Moellering, R., Craig, W., Billeter, M., Dalovisio, J. R., & Levine, D. P. (2009) · American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy · doi:10.2146/ajhp080434 · Cited by 1,795
Cited by
Neely, M. N., Kato, L., Youn, G., Kraler, L., Bayard, D., van Guilder, M., Schumitzky, A., Yamada, W., Jones, B., & Minejima, E. (2018) · Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy · doi:10.1128/aac.02042-17 · Cited by 359
Optimizing the Clinical Use of Vancomycin
Álvarez, R., López Cortés, L. E., Molina, J., Cisneros, J. M., & Pachón, J. (2016) · Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy · doi:10.1128/aac.03147-14 · Cited by 258
Metadata
- Authors
- Cataldo, M. A., Tacconelli, E., Grilli, E., Pea, F., & Petrosillo, N.
- Venue
- Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2011-10-25
- Volume
- 67
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 17-24
- ISSN
- 0305-7453 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2091
- OpenAlex
- W2142588350
- Cited by
- 204
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 2.95
- 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: Continuous versus intermittent infusion of vancomycin for the treatment of Gram-positive infections: systematic review and meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jac/dkr442
- The paper
- Cataldo, M. A., Tacconelli, E., Grilli, E., Pea, F., & Petrosillo, N. (2012). Continuous versus intermittent infusion of vancomycin for the treatment of Gram-positive infections: systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkr442
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.