Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10903605›Full record

Trial reportAnnals of surgery2000

Comparison of intravenous/oral ciprofloxacin plus metronidazole versus piperacillin/tazobactam in the treatment of complicated intraabdominal infections.

S M Cohn, P A Lipsett, T G Buchman, W G Cheadle, J W Milsom, S O'Marro, A E Yellin, S Jungerwirth, E V Rochefort, D C Haverstock and 1 more

Open access · greenAbstract readClinical TrialComparative StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Annals of surgery, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 95 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. [Oral antibiotics: even in severe infections?]Innere Medizin (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Are enterococci playing a role in postoperative peritonitis in critically ill patients?European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2012
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

S M CohnDepartment of Surgery, University of Miami School of Medicine, Miami, Florida 33101, USA. stephen.cohn@miami.edu
P A Lipsett
T G Buchman
W G Cheadle
J W Milsom
S O'Marro
A E Yellin
S Jungerwirth
E V Rochefort
D C Haverstock
S F Kowalsky
Bayer (United States) · USCleveland Clinic · USJohns Hopkins Hospital · USLAC+USC Medical Center · USSt. John's Hospital · USUniversity of Louisville · USWashington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the safety and efficacy of intravenous (IV) ciprofloxacin plus IV metronidazole (CIP+MET) with that of IV piperacillin/tazobactam (PIP/TAZO) in adults with complicated intraabdominal infections, and to compare the efficacy of sequential IV-to-oral CIP+MET therapy with that of the IV CIP-only regimen. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Treatment of intraabdominal infections remains a challenge, mainly because of their polymicrobial etiology and attendant death and complications. Antimicrobial regimens using sequential IV-to-oral therapy may reduce the length of hospital stay.

methodsIn this multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial involving 459 patients, clinically improved IV-treated patients were switched to oral therapy after 48 hours. Overall clinical response was the primary efficacy measurement.

resultsA total of 282 patients (151 CIP+MET, 131 PIP/TAZO) were valid for efficacy. Of these patients, 64% CIP+MET and 57% PIP/TAZO patients were considered candidates for oral therapy. Patients had a mean APACHE II score of 9.6. The most common diagnoses were appendicitis (33%), other intraabdominal infection (29%), and abscess (25%). Overall clinical resolution rates were statistically superior for CIP+MET (74%) compared with PIP/TAZO (63%). Corresponding rates in the subgroup suitable for oral therapy were 85% for CIP+MET and 70% for PIP/TAZO. Postsurgical wound infection rates were significantly lower in CIP+MET (11%) versus PIP/TAZO patients (19%). Mean length of stay was 14 days for CIP+MET and 17 days for PIP/TAZO patients.

conclusionCIP+MET, initially administered IV and followed by CIP+MET oral therapy, was clinically more effective than IV PIP/TAZO for the treatment of patients with complicated intraabdominal infections.

Indexed as

AbdomenAbdominal AbscessAdministration, OralAnti-Infective AgentsAppendicitisBacterial InfectionsCiprofloxacinDouble-Blind MethodDrug Therapy, CombinationFemaleHumansInjections, IntravenousMaleMetronidazoleMiddle AgedPenicillanic AcidAnti-Infective AgentsCiprofloxacinMetronidazolePenicillanic AcidPiperacillinPiperacillin, Tazobactam Drug Combination

Identifiers

PMID10903605
PMCPMC1421138
OpenAlexW2082810901

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.