ArticleDrug design, development and therapy2026
Health Technology Assessment of Oxazolidinones for MRSA-Associated Complicated Skin and Soft Tissue Infections.
Article in Drug design, development and therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Design, Synthesis and Biological Evaluation of New Oxazolidinone Antimicrobial Agents with Low Monoamine Oxidase A Inhibition.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aims to provide a reference for the introduction and utilization of oxazolidinone drugs in medical institutions, based on the authoritative Chinese guideline, Rapid Guideline for Drug Evaluation and Selection in Chinese Medical Institutions (2nd Edition) (Rapid Guideline). Patients and Methods: Based on the Rapid Guideline, this study conducted a comprehensive literature search across relevant databases, including the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, as well as drug labels and relevant clinical guidelines. A health technology assessment (HTA) was then performed on three oxazolidinone drugs across five dimensions: pharmaceutical properties, efficacy, safety, economy, and other attributes. Results: The final evaluation results from highest to lowest were tedizolid (83.52 points), linezolid (80.02 points), and contezolid (72.79 points). The evaluation results of tedizolid across the five dimensions were as follows: pharmaceutical properties (25.5 points), efficacy (25 points), safety (17.5 points), economy (9.02 points), and other attributes (6.5 points). For linezolid, the scores were pharmaceutical properties (25 points), efficacy (25 points), safety (18 points), economy (5.02 points), and other attributes (7 points). For contezolid, the scores were pharmaceutical properties (24 points), efficacy (22 points), safety (18.5 points), economy (4.29 points), and other attributes (4 points). Conclusion: Based on the comprehensive evaluation across five key dimensions, the recommended prioritization of oxazolidinone antibiotics is as follows: tedizolid, linezolid, and contezolid. The ranking was primarily driven by tedizolid's once-daily dosing and lowest total course cost, linezolid's pediatric indication and widespread availability, and contezolid's superior safety profile, although its overall score was limited by higher cost and lack of guideline recommendations. This study recommends the selection of tedizolid, linezolid, and contezolid for use in medical institutions during the introduction and application of oxazolidinone antibiotics.
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.