Trial reportIndian journal of pediatrics2004
Comparative evaluation of cefpodoxime versus cefixime in children with lower respiratory tract infections.
Trial report in Indian journal of pediatrics, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe emergence of penicillin and macrolide resistant strains, responsible for Acute Lower Respiratory Tract Infections in children has offered third generation cephalosporins the platform to perform. The aim of the present study was to evaluate two third generation oral cephalosporins for their empirical use in community acquired lower respiratory tract infections in pediatric patients. An assessment of the clinical cure and bacteriological eradication rates and an overall tolerability was made.
methodsIt was a prospective, open, comparative, multicentric study. 776 children (Mean age 10 years) with LRTIs were included and randomly allotted to two groups respectively. A total of 396 children were given cefpodoxime susp 5 mg/kg b.i.d. and 380 patients on cefixime 4 mg/kg b.i.d. for 10-14 days.
resultsAt the end of therapy, the clinical success with cefpodoxime was 97% as against 86.8% with cefixime. Bacterial eradication was 93.4% with cefpodoxime and 82.9% with cefixime.
conclusionCefpodoxime has been found to be a well-tolerated and superior alternative to cefixime synergistically documenting the extended spectrum of activity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.