This is not the most recent version of the article. View current version (7 JAN 2016)

Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

Linezolid versus vancomycin for skin and soft tissue infections

  1. Jirong Yue1,
  2. Bi Rong Dong1,*,
  3. Ming Yang1,
  4. Xiaomei Chen2,
  5. Taixiang Wu3,
  6. Guan J Liu4

Editorial Group: Cochrane Wounds Group

Published Online: 12 JUL 2013

Assessed as up-to-date: 9 MAY 2013

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008056.pub2


How to Cite

Yue J, Dong BR, Yang M, Chen X, Wu T, Liu GJ. Linezolid versus vancomycin for skin and soft tissue infections. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 7. Art. No.: CD008056. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008056.pub2.

Author Information

  1. 1

    West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Department of Geriatrics, Chengdu, Sichuan, China

  2. 2

    West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Department of Dermatology & Venereology, Chengdu, Sichuan, China

  3. 3

    West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, Chinese Ethics Committee of Registering Clinical Trials, Chengdu, Sichuan, China

  4. 4

    West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chinese Cochrane Centre, Chinese Evidence-Based Medicine Centre, Chengdu, Sichuan, China

*Bi Rong Dong, Department of Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37, Guo Xue Xiang, Chengdu, Sichuan, 610041, China. birongdong@163.com.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: New
  2. Published Online: 12 JUL 2013

SEARCH

This is not the most recent version of the article. View current version (07 JAN 2016)

[Figure 1]
Figure 1. Study flow diagram.
[Figure 2]
Figure 2. Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
[Figure 3]
Figure 3. Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
[Analysis 1.1]
Analysis 1.1. Comparison 1 Clinical cure, Outcome 1 All participants.
[Analysis 1.2]
Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 Clinical cure, Outcome 2 Adults' subgroup (≥ 18 years).
[Analysis 1.3]
Analysis 1.3. Comparison 1 Clinical cure, Outcome 3 MRSA subgroup.
[Analysis 2.1]
Analysis 2.1. Comparison 2 Microbiological cure, Outcome 1 All participants.
[Analysis 2.2]
Analysis 2.2. Comparison 2 Microbiological cure, Outcome 2 Adults' subgroup (≥ 18 years).
[Analysis 2.3]
Analysis 2.3. Comparison 2 Microbiological cure, Outcome 3 MRSA subgroup.
[Analysis 3.1]
Analysis 3.1. Comparison 3 Mortality, Outcome 1 All-cause mortality during follow-up.
[Analysis 4.1]
Analysis 4.1. Comparison 4 Adverse events, Outcome 1 Anaemia.
[Analysis 4.2]
Analysis 4.2. Comparison 4 Adverse events, Outcome 2 Diarrhoea.
[Analysis 4.3]
Analysis 4.3. Comparison 4 Adverse events, Outcome 3 Red man syndrome.
[Analysis 4.4]
Analysis 4.4. Comparison 4 Adverse events, Outcome 4 Pruritus.
[Analysis 4.5]
Analysis 4.5. Comparison 4 Adverse events, Outcome 5 Rash.
[Analysis 4.6]
Analysis 4.6. Comparison 4 Adverse events, Outcome 6 Thrombocytopenia.
[Analysis 4.7]
Analysis 4.7. Comparison 4 Adverse events, Outcome 7 Headache.
[Analysis 4.8]
Analysis 4.8. Comparison 4 Adverse events, Outcome 8 Nausea.
[Analysis 4.9]
Analysis 4.9. Comparison 4 Adverse events, Outcome 9 Vomiting.
[Analysis 5.1]
Analysis 5.1. Comparison 5 Duration of treatment, Outcome 1 Duration of treatment (day).