Trial reportAnnals of African medicine
A comparative study of the efficacy of intravenous benzylpenicillin and intravenous augmentin in the empirical management of Ludwig's angina.
Trial report in Annals of African medicine. 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.
- Complicated Odontogenic Infections at 2 District Hospitals in Tonkolili District, Sierra Leone: Protocol for a Prospective Observational Cohort Study (DELAY).JMIR research protocols · 2021Article
- Padiatric Oro-facial Fascial Space Infections.Journal of the West African College of SurgeonsArticle
- Comparison of C-Reactive Protein and Procalcitonin as Biomarkers for Severity of Sepsis in Odontogenic Infection.Journal of the West African College of SurgeonsReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Ludwig's angina is a potentially life-threatening condition characterized by bilateral cellulitis of the submandibular, submental, and sublingual spaces. Intravenous (I.V) penicillin G or amoxicillin-clavulanate (Augmentin) has been recommended for use as empirical management before obtaining culture and sensitivity results. Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the therapeutic efficacies and clinical outcomes of I.V benzylpenicillin with I.V Augmentin in the empirical management of Ludwig's angina. Methods: This was a prospective randomized clinical study carried out to measure the rate of swelling reduction (using the lobar rate, Adam's rate, and interincisal distance) and other clinical parameters among the two drug groups (I.V penicillin G and Augmentin). Descriptive summaries of variables were generated, and Student's t-test was used to compare the mean outcomes of the two groups. Results: A total of 26 individuals participated in the study, consisting of 46% (12) males and 54% (14) females. The participants ranged from 13 to 61 years with mean and median of 34.4 (±12.7) and 35 years, respectively. Only 8% of the cases of Ludwig's angina were not attributable to odontogenic factors, compared to 92% resulting from odontogenic causes. There was no significant difference in the efficacy of the two antibiotics used in this study. Conclusion: The efficacies and the clinical outcomes of the two antibiotics were similar. Benzylpenicillin is probably a suitable empirical alternative where Augmentin cannot be afforded, to reduce the mortality associated with the condition.
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.