Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 350

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparative Activities of Daptomycin, Linezolid, and Tigecycline against Catheter-Related Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Bacteremic Isolates Embedded in Biofilm

Open access
Raad, Issam, Hanna, Hend, Jiang, Ying, Dvorak, Tanya, Reitzel, Ruth, Chaiban, Gassan, Sherertz, Robert, Hachem, Ray·2007·Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy

Abstract

In the setting of catheter-related bloodstream infections, intraluminal antibiotic lock therapy could be useful for the salvage of vascular catheters. In this in vitro study, we investigated the efficacies of the newer antibiotics daptomycin, linezolid, and tigecycline, in comparison with those of vancomycin, minocycline, and rifampin, against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) embedded in biofilm. We also assessed the emergence of MRSA strains resistant to these antibiotics, alone or in combination with rifampin, after 4-hour daily use for catheter lock therapy. Minocycline, daptomycin, and tigecycline were more efficacious in inhibiting MRSA in biofilm than linezolid, vancomycin, and the negative control ( P < 0.001) after the first day of exposure to these antibiotics, with minocycline being the most active, followed by daptomycin and then tigecycline, and with vancomycin and linezolid lacking activity, similar to the negative control. After 3 days of 4-hour daily exposures, daptomycin was the fastest in eradicating MRSA from biofilm, followed by minocycline and tigecycline, which were faster than linezolid, rifampin, and vancomycin ( P < 0.001). When rifampin was used alone, it was the least effective in eradicating MRSA from biofilm after 5 days of 4-hour daily exposures, as it was associated with the emergence of rifampin-resistant MRSA. However, when rifampin was used in combination with other antibiotics, the combination was significantly effective in eliminating MRSA colonization in biofilm more rapidly than each of the antibiotics alone. In summary, daptomycin, minocycline, and tigecycline should be considered further for antibiotic lock therapy, and rifampin should be considered for enhanced antistaphylococcal activity but not as a single agent.

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 · 10.1128/aac.00350-06

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 350

Metadata

Authors
Raad, I., Hanna, H., Jiang, Y., Dvorak, T., Reitzel, R., Chaiban, G., Sherertz, R., & Hachem, R.
Venue
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
Published
2007-05
Volume
51
Issue
5
Pages
1656-1660
ISSN
  • 0066-4804 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-6596
OpenAlex
W2143661366
Cited by
350
References
1
FWCI
18.02
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 Activities of Daptomycin, Linezolid, and Tigecycline against Catheter-Related Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Bacteremic Isolates Embedded in Biofilm. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/aac.00350-06
The paper
Raad, I., Hanna, H., Jiang, Y., Dvorak, T., Reitzel, R., Chaiban, G., Sherertz, R., & Hachem, R. (2007). Comparative Activities of Daptomycin, Linezolid, and Tigecycline against Catheter-Related Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Bacteremic Isolates Embedded in Biofilm. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.00350-06

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.