ArticleYonsei medical journal2015
Comparison of Second- and Third-Generation Cephalosporin as Initial Therapy for Women with Community-Onset Uncomplicated Acute Pyelonephritis.
Article in Yonsei medical journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intravenous cefuroxime as a first-line treatment for women hospitalized for pyelonephritis.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2024Article
- A retrospective review of oral cephalosporins versus fluoroquinolones for the treatment of pyelonephritis.PloS one · 2022Article
- Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Antibiotic Treatment of Community-Acquired Urinary Tract Infections.Infection & chemotherapy · 2018Article
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
purposeThis study examined the clinical effectiveness of parenteral cefuroxime and cefotaxime as empirical antibiotics for treating hospitalized women with uncomplicated acute pyelonephritis (APN). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study was based on the clinical and microbiologic data of 255 hospitalized women with APN. Of these 255 women, 144 patients received cefuroxime and 111 received cefotaxime.
resultsThere were no marked differences in the demographic features, clinical characteristics, and treatment duration between the populations of the cefuroxime and cefotaxime groups. The rates of defervescence showed no significant differences in the two groups at 48, 72, 96, and 120 hours. The clinical cure rates observed at the follow-up visit 4 to 14 days after the completion of antimicrobial therapy were not statistically different between the cefuroxime and cefotaxime groups [94.9% (129 of 136) versus 98.0% (100 of 102), respectively; p=0.307], and the microbiological cure rates were also not significantly different [88.3% (91 of 103) versus 95.0% (76 of 80), respectively; p=0.186]. The median hospitalization periods in the cefuroxime and cefotaxime groups were 7 (6-8) and 7 (6-8) days (p=0.157), respectively. Microbiological success rates after 72-96 hours of initial antimicrobial therapy were also not statistically different in the cefuroxime and cefotaxime groups, 89.4% (110 of 123) versus 94.9% (93 of 98; p=0.140).
conclusionCefuroxime, a second-generation cephalosporin, is an appropriate antibiotic option for the initial treatment of uncomplicated APN and its efficacy does not differ from cefotaxime, a third-generation cephalosporin, in the initial parenteral therapy for community-onset APN.
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.