ReviewAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Efficacy and Safety of Antibiotics in the Treatment of Methicillin-Resistant
Review in Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Article
- CutaneousInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- In Silico Prioritisation of Similarity-Selected Small Molecules Targeting the IsdB NEAT Domain ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- SHP-1 agonist SC-43 limits methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection through inhibition of heme biosynthesis.EMBO molecular medicine · 2026Article
- Clinical outcomes of empirical anti-MRSA therapy at a tertiary care center in Madinah, Saudi Arabia: a retrospective single-center cohort study.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- In Vitro Activity of Mupirocin Against Methicillin-ResistantMicroorganisms · 2026Article
- Article
- Bacterial pathogen spectrum and antimicrobial resistance in positive pus cultures from hospitalized patients at a maternal and child healthcare specialty hospital in Shenzhen, China, 2021-2025.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Health Technology Assessment of Oxazolidinones for MRSA-Associated Complicated Skin and Soft Tissue Infections.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Article
- β-Lapachone encapsulated into stealth liposomes: inhibition of biofilm and cell wall thickness of MRSA.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2025Article
- Unmasking MRSA's Armor: Molecular Mechanisms of Resistance and Pioneering Therapeutic Countermeasures.Microorganisms · 2025Review
- Case Report: Biliary hemorrhage by intrahepatic pseudoaneurysm and asymptomatic right coronary artery pseudoaneurysm in a patient with STAT3 hyper IgE syndrome.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundVancomycin is a first-line drug for the treatment of MRSA infection. However, overuse of vancomycin can cause bacteria to become resistant, forming resistant strains and making infections more difficult to treat. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different antibiotics in the treatment of MRSA infections and to compare them, mainly with vancomycin, to find better vancomycin alternatives.
methodsAll studies were obtained from the PubMed and Embase databases from inception to 13 April 2023. The three comprehensive indicators of clinical cure success rate, clinical microbiological success rate, and adverse reactions were evaluated, and the clinical cure success rates of three disease types, complex skin and skin structure infections (cSSSIs), complex skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTIs), and pneumonia, were analyzed in subgroups. All statistical analyses were performed using R and STATA 14.0 software for network meta-analysis.
resultsA total of 38 trials with 6281 patients were included, and 13 drug treatments were evaluated. For MRSA infections, the results of network meta-analysis showed that the clinical success rates of linezolid, the combination of vancomycin and rifampin, and the combination of minocycline and rifampin were better than that of vancomycin (RR 1.71; 95%-CI 1.45-2.02), (RR 2.46; 95%-CI 1.10-5.49) (RR, 2.77; 95%-CI 1.06-7.21). The success rate of clinical microbiological treatment with vancomycin was inferior to that with telavancin (RR 0.74; 95%-CI 0.55-0.99). Linezolid had a higher rate of adverse reactions than teicoplanin (RR 5.35; 95%-CI 1.10-25.98). Subgroup analysis showed that vancomycin had a lower clinical success rate than linezolid in the treatment of MRSA-induced cSSSIs, cSSTIs, and pneumonia (RR 0.59; 95%-CI 0.44-0.80) (RR 0.55; 95%-CI 0.35-0.89) (RR 0.55; 95%-CI 0.32-0.93).
conclusionsThis systematic review and NMA provide a new comparison framework for the clinical treatment of MRSA infection. The NMA suggests that linezolid may be the antibiotic of choice for the treatment of MRSA infections, with the ability to improve clinical and microbiological success rates despite its disadvantage in terms of adverse effects. At the same time, the combination of minocycline and rifampicin may be the most effective drug to treat MRSA-induced cSSSIs, tedizolid may be the best drug to treat MRSA-induced cSSTIs, and the combination of vancomycin and rifampicin may be the most effective treatment for MRSA-induced pneumonia. More high-quality studies are still needed in the future to further identify alternatives to vancomycin.
trial registrationPROSPERO registration number CRD42023416788.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.