↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nosocomial pneumonia: role of linezolid in the People's Republic of China

Overview of attention for article published in ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
Title
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nosocomial pneumonia: role of linezolid in the People's Republic of China
Published in
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, March 2016
DOI 10.2147/ceor.s91985
Pubmed ID
Authors

Beth Lesher, Xin Gao, Yixi Chen, Zhengyin Liu

Abstract

The burden of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) nosocomial pneumonia in the People's Republic of China is high, with methicillin-resistance rates greater than 80% reported for patients with S. aureus pneumonia treated in intensive care units. Historically, vancomycin was the treatment of choice for patients with hospital-acquired MRSA infections. Recent evidence suggests that the minimum inhibitory concentration for vancomycin is increasing. Additionally, patients treated with vancomycin require monitoring of vancomycin trough concentrations and can develop nephrotoxicity. Linezolid is a treatment option for patients with hospital-acquired MRSA infections that can be administered either intravenously or orally. Analysis of data from a worldwide linezolid surveillance program initiated in the year 2004 shows no evidence of increasing linezolid minimum inhibitory concentrations. The clinical efficacy of linezolid for patients with gram-positive, including MRSA, nosocomial pneumonia, was evaluated in numerous studies. In general, results from these studies show higher or similar clinical success with no mortality difference for linezolid compared to vancomycin treated patients. Results from a Phase IV study enrolling patients with MRSA-confirmed nosocomial pneumonia suggest higher clinical cure rates for linezolid compared to vancomycin treated patients. Although acquisition costs are higher for linezolid compared to vancomycin therapy, evidence suggests similar overall medical costs. Cost-analysis results from a Chinese perspective show that linezolid dominated vancomycin therapy for MRSA nosocomial pneumonia in ∼35% of bootstrap simulations whereas vancomycin dominated linezolid in less than 2% of bootstrap simulations. In summary, results from both clinical and economic studies, including studies conducted from a Chinese perspective, support the use of linezolid for the treatment of patients with MRSA nosocomial pneumonia.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

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 6 16%
Student > Bachelor 5 14%
Other 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 15 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 16%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 8%
Psychology 2 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 7 19%
Unknown 14 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 15 April 2016.
All research outputs
#17,443,636
of 25,593,129 outputs
Outputs from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#329
of 524 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#190,193
of 313,080 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#6
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,593,129 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 524 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 313,080 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.