↓ Skip to main content

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of tedizolid for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections caused by MRSA

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
Title
Systematic review and network meta-analysis of tedizolid for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections caused by MRSA
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12879-016-2100-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rachael McCool, Ian M. Gould, Jacqui Eales, Teresa Barata, Mick Arber, Kelly Fleetwood, Julie Glanville, Teresa L. Kauf

Abstract

Tedizolid, the active moiety of tedizolid phosphate, is approved in the United States, the European Union, Canada and a number of other countries for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) caused by certain susceptible bacteria, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). This network meta-analysis (NMA) evaluates the comparative effectiveness of tedizolid and other antibacterials indicated for the treatment of ABSSSI caused by MRSA. Systematic review of 10 databases was undertaken to inform an NMA to estimate the relative effectiveness of tedizolid and established monotherapy comparators (ceftaroline, daptomycin, linezolid, teicoplanin, tigecycline, vancomycin) for treating MRSA-associated ABSSSI. Randomized controlled trials enrolling adults with ABSSSI or complicated skin and skin structure infections caused by suspected/documented MRSA were eligible for inclusion. Networks were developed based on similarity of study design, patient characteristics, outcome measures and available data. Outcomes of interest included clinical response at end of therapy (EOT), post-therapy evaluation (PTE) or test-of-cure assessment and treatment discontinuations resulting from adverse events (AEs). Bayesian NMA was conducted for each outcome using fixed-effects and random effects models. Literature searches identified 3,618 records; 15 trials met the inclusion criteria and were considered suitable for NMA comparison. In fixed-effects models, tedizolid had higher odds of clinical response at EOT (odds ratio [OR], 1.7; credible interval, 1.0, 3.0) and PTE than vancomycin (OR, 1.6; credible interval, 1.1, 2.5). No differences in odds of clinical response at EOT or PTE were observed between tedizolid and other comparators. There was no evidence of a difference among treatments for discontinuation due to AEs. Results from random effects and fixed-effects models were generally consistent. Tedizolid was superior to vancomycin for clinical response at EOT and PTE. There was no evidence of a difference between tedizolid and other comparators and no evidence of a difference between tedizolid and all comparators when evaluating discontinuation due to AEs. These findings suggest that tedizolid provides an alternative option for the management of serious skin infections caused by suspected or documented MRSA. This study is subject to the limitations inherent in all NMAs, and the results should be interpreted accordingly.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 19%
Other 6 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 14%
Student > Bachelor 5 14%
Student > Master 4 11%
Other 10 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 11%
Unspecified 4 11%
Other 9 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 November 2018.
All research outputs
#1,146,496
of 12,942,974 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#327
of 4,801 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,270
of 368,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#50
of 577 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,942,974 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,801 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 368,037 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 577 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.