↓ Skip to main content

Linezolid versus vancomycin or teicoplanin for nosocomial pneumonia: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, April 2013
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 (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
Title
Linezolid versus vancomycin or teicoplanin for nosocomial pneumonia: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
Published in
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, April 2013
DOI 10.1007/s10096-013-1867-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

H. Jiang, R.-N. Tang, J. Wang

Abstract

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is an important cause of nosocomial pneumonia. Compared with glycopeptide antibiotics, linezolid achieves higher lung epithelial lining fluid concentrations, which may have an advantage in treating nosocomial pneumonia patients. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of linezolid versus vancomycin or teicoplanin for the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia. Data were obtained from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the EMBASE and MEDLINE databases. Randomised controlled studies involving the use of linezolid versus vancomycin or teicoplanin in nosocomial pneumonia patients were included in the study. Twelve linezolid trials were included. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia regarding the clinical cure rate [relative risk (RR) = 1.08, 95 % confidence interval (CI) = 1.00-1.17, p = 0.06]. Linezolid was associated with better microbiological eradication rate in nosocomial pneumonia patients compared with glycopeptide antibiotics (RR = 1.16, 95 % CI = 1.03-1.31, p = 0.01). There were no differences in the all-cause mortality (RR = 0.95, 95 % CI = 0.83-1.09, p = 0.46) between the two groups. However, the risks of rash (RR = 0.41, 95 % CI = 0.24-0.71, p = 0.001) and renal dysfunction (RR = 0.41, 95 % CI = 0.27-0.64, p < 0.0001) were higher with glycopeptide antibiotics. Although linezolid was more effective in eradicating microbiology than glycopeptide antibiotics for nosocomial pneumonia patients, it did not demonstrate superiority in clinical cure. The incidences of renal dysfunction and rash are higher in the glycopeptide antibiotics group.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 3%
Netherlands 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 76 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 14%
Researcher 9 11%
Student > Postgraduate 8 10%
Student > Master 8 10%
Other 7 9%
Other 21 26%
Unknown 16 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 53%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 1%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 1%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 22 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 09 December 2022.
All research outputs
#4,102,957
of 22,788,370 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
#348
of 2,769 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,433
of 199,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
#5
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,788,370 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,769 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 199,655 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.