The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 47 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Vancomycin versus Teicoplanin: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Open accessAbstract
Vancomycin and teicoplanin are the glycopeptides currently in use for the treatment of infections caused by invasive beta-lactam-resistant gram-positive organisms. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that have compared vancomycin and teicoplanin administered systemically for the treatment of suspected or proven infections. A comprehensive search of trials without year, language, or publication status restrictions was performed. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Two reviewers independently extracted the data. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled by using the fixed-effect model (RRs of >1 favor vancomycin). Twenty-four trials were included. All-cause mortality was similar overall (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.21), and there was no significant heterogeneity. In trials that used adequate allocation concealment, the results favored teicoplanin (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.06), while in trials with unknown methods or inadequate concealment, the results favored vancomycin (RR, 3.61; 95% CI, 1.27 to 10.30). The latter trials might have recruited more severely ill patients. No other variable affected the RRs for mortality, including the assessment of glycopeptides administered empirically or for proven infections, neutropenia, the participant's age, and drug dosing. There were no significant differences between teicoplanin and vancomycin with regard to clinical failure (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.05), microbiological failure (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.65), and other efficacy outcomes. Lower RRs (in favor of teicoplanin) for clinical failure were observed with a lower risk of bias and when treatment was initiated for infections caused by gram-positive organisms rather than empirically. Total adverse events (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.74), nephrotoxicity (RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.61), and red man syndrome were significantly less frequent with teicoplanin. Teicoplanin is not inferior to vancomycin with regard to efficacy and is associated with a lower adverse event rate than vancomycin.
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
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series
(2008) · doi:10.1002/9780470712184 · Cited by 25,048
National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards
Bruck, E. (1980) · Pediatrics · doi:10.1542/peds.65.1.187 · Cited by 14,751
Klevens, R. M. (2007) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.298.15.1763 · Cited by 3,726
Systematic Reviews in Health Care : Meta-Analysis in Context
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., & Altman, D. G. (2000) · Cited by 2,312
Deeks, J. J., Altman, D. G., & Bradburn, M. J. (2001) · Systematic Reviews in Health Care · doi:10.1002/9780470693926.ch15 · Cited by 2,163
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
Hidayat, L. K., Hsu, D. I., Quist, R., Shriner, K. A., & Wong-Beringer, A. (2006) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.166.19.2138 · Cited by 860
Sakoulas, G., Moise-Broder, P. A., Schentag, J., Forrest, A., Moellering, R. C., & Eliopoulos, G. M. (2004) · Journal of Clinical Microbiology · doi:10.1128/jcm.42.6.2398-2402.2004 · Cited by 836
Epidemiology of Methicillin‐Resistant Staphylococcus aureus
Boucher, H. W., & Corey, G. R. (2008) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1086/533590 · Cited by 805
Soriano, A., Marco, F., Martinez, J. A., Pisos, E., Almela, M., Dimova, V. P., Alamo, D., Ortega, M., Lopez, J., & Mensa, J. (2008) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1086/524667 · Cited by 767
Cited by
Gould, F. K., Denning, D. W., Elliott, T. S. J., Foweraker, J., Perry, J. D., Prendergast, B. D., Sandoe, J. A. T., Spry, M. J., & Watkin, R. W. (2012) · Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy · doi:10.1093/jac/dkr450 · Cited by 593
Miyazu, D., Kodama, N., Yamashita, D., Tanaka, H., Inoue, S., Imakyure, O., Hirakawa, M., Shuto, H., & Kataoka, Y. (2016) · American Journal of Case Reports · doi:10.12659/ajcr.899149 · Cited by 27
Metadata
- Authors
- Svetitsky, S., Leibovici, L., & Paul, M.
- Venue
- Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 2009-10
- Volume
- 53
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 4069-4079
- ISSN
- 0066-4804 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-6596
- OpenAlex
- W1995854195
- Cited by
- 275
- References
- 47
- FWCI
- 1.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Vancomycin versus Teicoplanin: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/aac.00341-09
- The paper
- Svetitsky, S., Leibovici, L., & Paul, M. (2009). Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Vancomycin versus Teicoplanin: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.00341-09
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.