ArticleClinical and experimental otorhinolaryngology2015
A Comparison of Cefditoren Pivoxil 8-12 mg/kg/day and Cefditoren Pivoxil 16-20 mg/kg/day in Treatment of Children With Acute Presumed Bacterial Rhinosinusitis: A Prospective, Randomized, Investigator-Blinded, Parallel-Group Study.
Article in Clinical and experimental otorhinolaryngology, 2015. 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, 3 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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesCefditoren pivoxil (CDT) has been used in the treatment of rhinosinusitis. However, little is known about the efficacy of this drug at low and high doses. This study was to compare the efficacy and safety of low dose (8-12 mg/kg/day) and high dose (16-20 mg/kg/day) CDT in the treatment of children with uncomplicated acute rhinosinusitis (ARS).
methodsThis investigation was a randomized, investigator-blinded, and parallel study, conducted in patients (aged 1-15 years) with a clinical diagnosis of uncomplicated ARS. Two groups of patients randomly received low dose or high dose CDT for 14 days. Patients' symptoms were assessed quantitatively using a quantitative symptom score (the S5 score). The changes in sinus symptoms and adverse events were provided by patients and their parents/caregivers. The response rate and adverse effects were evaluated at days 7 and 14. The relapse rate was recorded at days 21 and 28. The recurrences of sinus symptoms at day 60 were also assessed.
resultsOne hundred forty patients were recruited and randomized; 72 received low dose CDT (group I) and 68 received high dose CDT (group II). There were no significant differences in demographic data including sex, age, presenting symptoms, medical history, and X-ray findings between two groups. The responses rate at day 14 in groups I and II were 95.5% and 95.4%, respectively (P>0.99). There were no significant differences between groups in relapse rate at day 28 and no recurrence at day 60 in either group. The most common treatment-related adverse events were diarrhea (4.2% in group I vs. 2.9% in group II) and vomiting (2.8% in group I vs. 10.3% in group II). There was no statistically significant difference in adverse events between groups.
conclusionBoth low and high doses regimens of CDT appeared a similar clinical outcome for treatment in uncomplicated ARS in pediatric patients.
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.