Clarification to the systematic review and meta-analysis involving tigecycline

Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy

Volumn 55, Issue 10, 2011, Pages 4941-

  McGovern, Paul ^a   Babinchak, Timothy ^a   Quintana, Alvaro ^a  

^a PFIZER INC   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

TIGECYCLINE;

DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG SAFETY; HOSPITAL ACQUIRED PNEUMONIA; LETTER; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); MORTALITY; NONHUMAN; PHASE 2 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC);

ANTI-BACTERIAL AGENTS; COMMUNICABLE DISEASES; HUMANS; MINOCYCLINE; VANCOMYCIN;

EID: 80052839914     PISSN: 00664804     EISSN: 10986596     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00512-11     Document Type: Letter

References (13)

1. Bergallo, C., et al. 2009. Safety and efficacy of intravenous tigecycline in treatment of community-acquired pneumonia: results from a double-blind randomized phase 3 comparison study with levofloxacin. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 63:52-61.
2. Breedt, J., et al. 2005. Safety and efficacy of tigecycline in treatment of skin and skin structure infections: results of a double-blind phase 3 comparison study with vancomycin-aztreonam. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 49:4658-4666.
3. Cai, Y., R. Wang, B. Liang, N. Bai, and Y. Liu. 2011. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness and safety of tigecycline for treatment of infectious disease. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 55:1162-1172.
4. Chen, Z., et al. 2010. Efficacy and safety of tigecycline monotherapy vs. imipenem/cilastatin in Chinese patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Infect. Dis. 10:217.
5. Florescu, I., et al. 2008. Efficacy and safety of tigecycline compared with vancomycin or linezolid for treatment of serious infections with methicillinresistant Staphylococcus aureus or vancomycin-resistant enterococci: a phase 3, multicentre, double-blind, randomized study. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 62(Suppl. 1):i17-i28.
6. Fomin, P., et al. 2005. Tigecycline is efficacious in the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections. Int. J. Surg. 3:35-47.
7. Freire, A. T., et al. 2010. Comparison of tigecycline with imipenem/cilastatin for the treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 68:140-151.
8. Higgins, J. P. T., and S. Green. March 2011. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration.
9. Moher, D., A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, and D. G. Altman. 2009. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 339:b2535.
10. Oliva, M. E., et al. 2005. A multicenter trial of the efficacy and safety of tigecycline versus imipenem/cilastatin in patients with complicated intraabdominal infections [study ID numbers 3074A1-301-WW; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00081744]. BMC Infect. Dis. 5:88.
11. Sacchidanand, S., et al. 2005. Efficacy and safety of tigecycline monotherapy compared with vancomycin plus aztreonam in patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections: results from a phase 3, randomized, doubleblind trial. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 9:251-261.
12. Tanaseanu, C., et al. 2009. Efficacy and safety of tigecycline versus levofloxacin for community-acquired pneumonia. BMC Pulm. Med. 9:44.
13. Towfigh, S., J. Pasternak, A. Poirier, H. Leister, and T. Babinchak. 2010. A multicentre, open-label, randomized comparative study of tigecycline versus ceftriaxone sodium plus metronidazole for the treatment of hospitalized subjects with complicated intra-abdominal infections. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 16:1274-1281.