Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 181

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

Benefits of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Vancomycin: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Open access
Ye, Zhi-Kang, Tang, Hui-Lin, Zhai, Suo-Di·2013·PLoS ONE

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The necessity of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) for vancomycin is controversial. The objective of the current review was to evaluate the available evidence for the necessity of TDM in patients given vancomycin to treat Gram-positive infections. METHODS: Medline, Embase, Web of Sciences, the Cochrane Library and two Chinese literature databases (CNKI, CBM) were searched. Randomized controlled studies and observational studies that compared the clinical outcomes of TDM groups vs. non-TDM groups were included. Two reviewers independently extracted the data. The primary outcome was clinical efficacy of therapy. Secondary outcomes included vancomycin associated nephrotoxicity, duration of vancomycin therapy, length of hospital stay, and mortality. Meta-analysis was performed using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed effect method (FEM). Odds ratios (ORs) or weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs) were calculated for categorical and continuous outcomes, respectively. RESULTS: One randomized controlled trial (RCT) and five cohort studies were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with non-TDM groups, TDM groups had significantly higher rates of clinical efficacy (OR = 2.62, 95%CI 1.34-5.11 P = 0.005) and decreased rates of nephrotoxicity (OR = 0.25, 95%CI 0.13-0.48 P<0.0001). Subgroup analyses showed that TDM group had significantly higher rates of clinical efficacy in both cohort studies subgroup (OR = 3.04, 95%CI 1.34-6.90) and in Asian population subgroup (OR = 3.04, 95%CI 1.34-6.90). TDM group had significantly decreased rates of nephrotoxicity in all subgroup. There was no significant difference in duration of vancomycin therapy (WMD = -0.40, 95%CI -2.83-2.02 P = 0.74) or length of stay (WMD = -1.01, 95%CI -7.51-5.49 P = 0.76) between TDM and non-TDM groups. Subgroup analyses showed there were no differences in duration of vancomycin therapy. Only one study reported mortality rates. CONCLUSIONS: Studies to date show that TDM significantly increases the rate of clinical efficacy and decreases the rate of nephrotoxicity in patients treated with 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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0077169

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 181

Metadata

Authors
Ye, Z.-K., Tang, H.-L., & Zhai, S.-D.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2013-10-18
Volume
8
Issue
10
Pages
e77169
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2027399697
Cited by
181
References
1
FWCI
1.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Benefits of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Vancomycin: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0077169
The paper
Ye, Z.-K., Tang, H.-L., & Zhai, S.-D. (2013). Benefits of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Vancomycin: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0077169

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.