MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2951207900 · doi:10.1177/1060028019856721

What Is the Evidence for Co-trimoxazole, Clindamycin, Doxycycline, and Minocycline in the Treatment of Methicillin-Resistant <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i> (MRSA) Pneumonia?

2019· article· en· W2951207900 on OpenAlexaff
Jenny Hong, Mary H. H. Ensom, Tim T Y Lau

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Pharmacotherapy · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntimicrobial Resistance in Staphylococcus
Canadian institutionsVancouver Coastal HealthSurrey Memorial HospitalVancouver General HospitalFraser HealthUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMinocyclineClindamycinDoxycyclineMethicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureusTrimethoprimPneumoniaAntibioticsSulfamethoxazoleInternal medicineStaphylococcus aureusIntensive care medicineMicrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To review the evidence for trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX), clindamycin, doxycycline, and minocycline in the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) pneumonia. Data Source: MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Google, Google Scholar, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1946 to May 20, 2019. The search was performed with the keywords methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, MRSA, Staphylococcus aureus, pneumonia, trimethoprim, sulfamethoxazole drug combination, trimethoprim, sulfamethoxazole, TMP-SMX, co-trimoxazole, clindamycin, doxycycline, and minocycline. Data Extraction: Studies reporting the use of the above antibiotics for MRSA pneumonia treatment with clinical outcomes were included. Search parameters were limited to English language and human studies only. Data Synthesis: The search yielded 16 relevant articles: 6 TMP-SMX, 8 clindamycin, zero doxycycline, and 2 minocycline. For TMP-SMX, prospective randomized trials showed variable results; however, these studies were not specifically designed to assess MRSA pneumonia treatment. Retrospective studies with clindamycin suggested that it could be used as monotherapy or in combination with other anti-MRSA antibiotics. There was no evidence for doxycycline use, but 2 small retrospective reviews appeared to support minocycline as a treatment option. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: These antibiotics are often used in clinical practice as potential treatment options for MRSA pneumonia. This article reviews the evidence for the clinical efficacy and safety of these agents. Conclusions: There are limited data to support use of TMP-SMX, clindamycin, doxycycline, or minocycline in MRSA pneumonia treatment. Randomized controlled trials are required to determine the effectiveness of these antibiotics. Clinicians should base their decision to use these agents on a case-by-case basis depending on clinical status and susceptibility results.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.010
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.124
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.321 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of PharmacotherapySame topicAntimicrobial Resistance in StaphylococcusFrench-language works237,207