ArticleClinical and experimental emergency medicine2021
Effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with centipede stings: a randomized controlled trial.
Article in Clinical and experimental emergency medicine, 2021. 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.
- Bacterial community associated with the surface and inside of centipede forcipules: Identification and characterization.PloS one · 2026Article
- Epidemiology and management of wildlife contacts in an emergency department of French Guiana.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveCentipede stings are a common problem in tropical countries. Current treatment guidelines do not include recommendations for antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent the associated bacterial infection since no previous study has assessed the effectiveness of antibiotic treatment in patients bitten by centipedes. Thus, this study aimed to compare the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis over placebo for the skin infections that occur after a centipede sting.
methodsIn this randomized, double-blind, multi-center clinical trial conducted in the emergency departments in four hospitals, patients with any history of a centipede sting were prospectively enrolled and divided randomly into two groups. One group received dicloxacillin and the other a placebo. The primary outcome was the incidence of wound infection 3 to 5 days after the centipede sting.
resultsFrom December 2014 to October 2015, a total of 83 patients were enrolled in the study and were randomized into antibiotic (n=43) and placebo (n=40) groups. Two patients in the antibiotic group developed wound infections, while none showed wound infection in the placebo group (5% vs. 0%). The wound infection rate did not differ significantly between the two groups (P=0.496).
conclusionAntibiotic prophylaxis may be unnecessary in cases of centipede stings. Proper wound care is an adequate and appropriate treatment for patients with centipede stings. However, the patient should be re-evaluated for detection of secondary bacterial infection.
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.