ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2017
Principles of antibiotic application in children with lobar pneumonia: Step-up or step-down.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Community-acquired pseudomonas aeruginosa pneumonia in immunocompetent children: a study of 7 cases.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Efficacy of budesonide suspension in the treatment of lobar pneumonia by fiberoptic bronchoscopic alveolar lavage.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In order to provide a scientific basis for rational use of antibiotics, we studied and compared the therapeutic effects of step-down and step-up antibiotic treatment schemes in children with lobar pneumonia. Eighty cases of children with lobar pneumonia were enrolled in this study and were randomly divided into two groups: The observation group and the control group, with 40 cases in each group. In the observation group, there were 23 cases with mild and 17 cases with severe lobar pneumonia, and in the control group, 25 were mild and 15 were severe cases. Patients in the control group were treated with antibiotics using step-up therapy method, while patients in the observation group were treated using step-down antibiotic therapy. Our results showed no significant differences in white blood cell (WBC) reduction rate, the course of antibiotic treatment, disappearance time of pulmonary rales and total efficiency in children with mild lobar pneumonia in the observation group after 72 h of treatment. The level of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) and procalcitonin (PCT) in the observation group were significantly lower. After 72 h of treatment of children with severe lobar pneumonia in the observation group, the rate of WBC reduction accelerated significantly. Compared to the patients in the control group, the course of antibiotic treatment and disappearance time of pulmonary rales were shortened significantly, while the total efficiency of treatment was improved considerably in the observation group. Also in the observation group, hs-CRP and PCT levels were significantly lower than that in the control group. In severe cases, step-down therapy showed a better result in relieving the inflammatory reactions. The disappearance time of pulmonary rales and the effective rate of treatment was significantly higher than those of step-up therapy. It was obvious that for children with severe lobar pneumonia, step-down therapy produced better results in relieving the inflammatory reaction.
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.