ArticleClinical drug investigation2006
Intravenous or sequential ciprofloxacin therapy in hospitalised patients with a broad spectrum of infections: a post-marketing surveillance study.
Article in Clinical drug investigation, 2006. 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, 1 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study set out to obtain up-to-date information on the efficacy, safety and tolerability of ciprofloxacin as well as the time to improvement and recovery, and to explore data on drug utilisation in hospitalised patients with a special focus on intravenous therapy with ciprofloxacin. METHODS, DESIGN AND PATIENTS: Hospitalised patients with a broad spectrum of infections were included in this non-interventional multicentre study. In order to be included, the patients had to be treated with intravenous ciprofloxacin for a minimum of 2 days. Physicians were advised to pay attention to the contraindications mentioned in the summary of product characteristics. They documented demographic and anamnestic data, the type and severity of the infection, concomitant diseases and medications, the course of clinical and laboratory symptoms, and the treatment. In addition, they rated the overall efficacy of intravenous ciprofloxacin and recorded the time to improvement and recovery. All adverse events were reported.
results1012 hospitalised patients with mild to severe clinical infections were included. Their mean age was 61.5 years (SD 16.7), and 57.4% were males. Intravenous ciprofloxacin was given to 28.7% of patients exclusively and 69.6% started with intravenous ciprofloxacin and were switched later to oral treatment. The majority of patients presented with one defined source of infection (77.9%), mainly located in the respiratory tract (40.2%), the abdomen (21.4%), the urinary tract (14.9%) or the kidney (13.4%). Other infections involved the bones and joints (4.5%) or were classified as sepsis (8.0%); 39.6% of infections were classified as severe. Infection symptoms improved in 86.2% of the patients within 5 days. The overall improvement and recovery rates were 91.9% and 85.8%, respectively. Efficacy of ciprofloxacin was judged as 'very good' or 'good' in 86.5% of patients. Tolerability was judged as 'very good' or 'good' in 98.2% of patients. Adverse events occurred rarely and were reported in 2.17% of patients. Seventeen (1.68%) fulfilled the criteria of serious adverse events. In only 0.4% of patients was a relationship between the adverse event and ciprofloxacin treatment suspected.
conclusionsIntravenous ciprofloxacin is an effective and well tolerated antibacterial treatment in hospitalised patients experiencing a broad spectrum of mild to severe infections.
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.