1983
DOI: 10.1128/aac.24.2.163
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of cefadroxil and cephalexin in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia

Abstract: Thirty-four patients with community-acquired acute pneumonias were treated in a prospective, randomized trial with either cefadroxil, 500 mg twice daily, or cephalexin, 250 mg four times daily. In both groups of patients, the presence of chronic illnesses predisposing to pneumonia was common. Streptococcus pneumoniae was isolated from 65% of the initial sputum specimens, and most illnesses were of mild to moderate severity. All 19 cases treated with cefadroxil and all 15 cases treated with cephalexin were clin… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

1988
1988
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…(2) Looking back to the time when the deci¬ sion was made about where to treat you for the episode of pneumonia, who would you say made the decision? STATISTICAL METHODS Subgroup responses to the questionnaire were compared by the x2 test for categorical variables and Student í test for continuous variables.…”
Section: Survey Methods and Questionnairementioning
confidence: 99%
“…(2) Looking back to the time when the deci¬ sion was made about where to treat you for the episode of pneumonia, who would you say made the decision? STATISTICAL METHODS Subgroup responses to the questionnaire were compared by the x2 test for categorical variables and Student í test for continuous variables.…”
Section: Survey Methods and Questionnairementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The literature review for the period 1981–2008 provided only 19 acceptable articles relevant to the antibiotic management of CAP 277 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 . [Ib] [Ib] [Ib] [Ib] [II] [Ib] [Ib] [Ib] [Ib] [Ib] [Ib] [Ib] [Ib] [Ib] [Ib] [Ib] [Ib] [Ib] [Ib] The remainder were rejected for the following reasons: inadequately powered studies or a retrospective design,102 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 non-blinded/non-randomised studies,274 401 402 403 404 405 antibiotic not available in the UK or withdrawn,357 361 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 study population or management unrepresentative of normal clinical practice in the UK,377 442 …”
Section: Section 8 Antibiotic Managementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“… 2 However, out‐patient care is nearly 15‐fold cheaper. 3 The rationale and criteria for hospitalization are current areas of study as they may represent significant cost‐savings. In order to identify the group of CAP patients that can be safely managed as out‐patients, Fine et al proposed a prediction rule which purports to define a group of low‐risk CAP patients with 0.1% mortality.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%