Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21339275›Full record

Trial reportPediatrics2011

Randomized controlled trial of cephalexin versus clindamycin for uncomplicated pediatric skin infections.

Aaron E Chen, Karen C Carroll, Marie Diener-West, Tracy Ross, Joyce Ordun, Mitchell A Goldstein, Gaurav Kulkarni, J B Cantey, George K Siberry

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Pediatrics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 71 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Interventions for impetigo.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Treatment of methicillin-resistantJAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2021
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Impact of Systemic Antibiotics on Staphylococcus aureus Colonization and Recurrent Skin Infection.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2018
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Prevention of Recurrent Staphylococcal Skin Infections.Infectious disease clinics of North America · 2015
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. [Systemic therapy with antibiotics. Overview of important antibiotics in dermatology].Der Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete · 2014
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Aaron E ChenJohns Hopkins University, Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, CMSC 144, 600 N Wolfe St, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA. achen33@jhmi.edu
Karen C Carroll
Marie Diener-West
Tracy Ross
Joyce Ordun
Mitchell A Goldstein
Gaurav Kulkarni
J B Cantey
George K Siberry
Johns Hopkins University · USNational Institutes of Health · US

Funding

ZINC AND CA EDTA THERAPY OF PLUMBISMM01RR000052 · NCRR · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI BELCHER, HAROLYN MILLICENT EDITH · 1985 to 2007
$37.3M
NCRR NIH HHS M01 RR000052NCRR NIH HHS M01-RR0052
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare clindamycin and cephalexin for treatment of uncomplicated skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) caused predominantly by community-associated (CA) methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). We hypothesized that clindamycin would be superior to cephalexin (an antibiotic without MRSA activity) for treatment of these infections. PATIENTS AND

methodsPatients aged 6 months to 18 years with uncomplicated SSTIs not requiring hospitalization were enrolled September 2006 through May 2009. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to 7 days of cephalexin or clindamycin; primary and secondary outcomes were clinical improvement at 48 to 72 hours and resolution at 7 days. Cultures were obtained and tested for antimicrobial susceptibilities, pulsed-field gel electrophoresis type, and Panton-Valentine leukocidin status.

resultsOf 200 enrolled patients, 69% had MRSA cultured from wounds. Most MRSA were USA300 or subtypes, positive for Panton-Valentine leukocidin, and clindamycin susceptible, consistent with CA-MRSA. Spontaneous drainage occurred or a drainage procedure was performed in 97% of subjects. By 48 to 72 hours, 94% of subjects in the cephalexin arm and 97% in the clindamycin arm were improved (P = .50). By 7 days, all subjects were improved, with complete resolution in 97% in the cephalexin arm and 94% in the clindamycin arm (P = .33). Fevers and age less than 1 year, but not initial erythema > 5 cm, were associated with early treatment failures, regardless of antibiotic used.

conclusionsThere is no significant difference between cephalexin and clindamycin for treatment of uncomplicated pediatric SSTIs caused predominantly by CA-MRSA. Close follow-up and fastidious wound care of appropriately drained, uncomplicated SSTIs are likely more important than initial antibiotic choice.

Indexed as

AdolescentAnti-Bacterial AgentsCephalexinChildChild, PreschoolClindamycinDose-Response Relationship, DrugFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansInfantMaleRetrospective StudiesStaphylococcal Skin InfectionsStaphylococcus aureusTreatment OutcomeAnti-Bacterial AgentsCephalexinClindamycin

Identifiers

PMID21339275
PMCPMC3387913
OpenAlexW2167909888

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.