The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Linezolid versus Vancomycin in Treatment of Complicated Skin and Soft Tissue Infections
Open accessAbstract
Skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) are a common cause of morbidity in both the community and the hospital. An SSTI is classified as complicated if the infection has spread to the deeper soft tissues, if surgical intervention is necessary, or if the patient has a comorbid condition hindering treatment response (e.g., diabetes mellitus or human immunodeficiency virus). The purpose of this study was to compare linezolid to vancomycin in the treatment of suspected or proven methicillin-resistant gram-positive complicated SSTIs (CSSTIs) requiring hospitalization. This was a randomized, open-label, comparator-controlled, multicenter, multinational study that included patients with suspected or proven methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections that involved substantial areas of skin or deeper soft tissues, such as cellulitis, abscesses, infected ulcers, or burns (<10% of total body surface area). Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive linezolid (600 mg) every 12 h either intravenously (i.v.) or orally or vancomycin (1 g) every 12 h i.v. In the intent-to-treat population, 92.2% and 88.5% of patients treated with linezolid and vancomycin, respectively, were clinically cured at the test-of-cure (TOC) visit ( P = 0.057). Linezolid outcomes (124/140 patients or 88.6%) were superior to vancomycin outcomes (97/145 patients or 66.9%) at the TOC visit for patients with MRSA infections ( P < 0.001). Drug-related adverse events were reported in similar numbers in both the linezolid and the vancomycin arms of the trial. The results of this study demonstrate that linezolid therapy is well tolerated, equivalent to vancomycin in treating CSSTIs, and superior to vancomycin in the treatment of CSSTIs due to MRSA.
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
Methicillin-Resistant S. aureus Infections among Patients in the Emergency Department
Moran, G. J., Krishnadasan, A., Gorwitz, R. J., Fosheim, G. E., McDougal, L. K., Carey, R. B., & Talan, D. A. (2006) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa055356 · Cited by 2,285
Howden, B. P., Davies, J. K., Johnson, P. D. R., Stinear, T. P., & Grayson, M. L. (2010) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.00042-09 · Cited by 962
Clinical Impact of Staphylococcus aureus Skin and Soft Tissue Infections
Linz, M. S., Mattappallil, A., Finkel, D., & Parker, D. (2023) · Antibiotics · doi:10.3390/antibiotics12030557 · Cited by 293
Metadata
- Authors
- Weigelt, J., Itani, K., Stevens, D., Lau, W., Dryden, M., & Knirsch, C.
- Venue
- Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 2005-06
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 2260-2266
- ISSN
- 0066-4804 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-6596
- OpenAlex
- W2090874066
- Cited by
- 457
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 29.81
- 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
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.