↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Linezolid versus vancomycin for skin and soft tissue infections

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
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)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
130 Mendeley
Title
Linezolid versus vancomycin for skin and soft tissue infections
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008056.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jirong Yue, Bi Rong Dong, Ming Yang, Xiaomei Chen, Taixiang Wu, Guan J Liu

Abstract

The morbidity and treatment costs associated with skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) are high. Linezolid and vancomycin are antibiotics that are commonly used in treating skin and soft-tissue infections, specifically those infections due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). To compare the effects and safety of linezolid and vancomycin for treating people with SSTIs. For this first update of this review we conducted searches of the following databases: Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 24 March 2015; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. We also contacted manufacturers for details of unpublished and ongoing trials. We scrutinised citations within all obtained trials and major review articles to identify any additional trials. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing linezolid with vancomycin in the treatment of SSTIs. Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. The primary outcomes were clinical cure, microbiological cure, and SSTI-related and treatment-related mortality. We performed subgroup analyses according to age, and whether the infection was due to MRSA. No new trials were identified for this first update. We included nine RCTs (3144 participants). Linezolid was associated with a significantly better clinical (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.16) and microbiological cure rate in adults (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.16). For those infections due to MRSA, linezolid was significantly more effective than vancomycin in clinical (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.17) and microbiological cure rates (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.32). No RCT reported SSTI-related and treatment-related mortality. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between linezolid and vancomycin (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.80). There were fewer incidents of red man syndrome (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.29), pruritus (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.75) and rash (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.58) in the linezolid group compared with vancomycin, however, more people reported thrombocytopenia (RR 13.06, 95% CI 1.72 to 99.22), and nausea (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.94) when treated with linezolid. It seems, from the available data, that length of stay in hospital was shorter for those in the linezolid group than the vancomycin group. The daily cost of outpatient therapy was less with oral linezolid than with intravenous vancomycin. Although inpatient treatment with linezolid cost more than inpatient treatment with vancomycin per day, the median length of hospital stay was three days shorter with linezolid. Thus, total hospital charges per patient were less with linezolid treatment than with vancomycin treatment. Linezolid seems to be more effective than vancomycin for treating people with SSTIs, including SSTIs caused by MRSA. The available evidence is at high risk of bias and is based on studies that were supported by the pharmaceutical company that makes linezolid. Further well-designed, independently-funded, RCTs are needed to confirm the available evidence.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 129 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 21 16%
Student > Master 20 15%
Other 12 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 9%
Student > Postgraduate 11 8%
Other 20 15%
Unknown 34 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 8%
Psychology 5 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Other 18 14%
Unknown 39 30%

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 27 January 2021.
All research outputs
#3,172,658
of 18,775,194 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,757
of 11,857 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,822
of 384,176 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#126
of 209 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,775,194 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,857 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 384,176 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 209 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.