Paper Details

  1. Home
  2. Paper Details

Randomized comparative study of 0.5 and 1 g of cefodizime (HR 221) versus 1 g of cefotaxime for acute uncomplicated urogenital gonorrhea.

Author: BootJ M, Heeres-WeststrateP L, KnappJ S, MichelM F, SchallaW O, StolzE, WagenvoortJ H, van KlingerenB, van der WilligenA H

Clinical TrialA clinical trial is a planned study conducted on humans to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and treatment methods. It aims to explore the possibilities of new treatments and improve the health of patients.
Comparative StudyResearch that compares multiple groups/interventions to determine differences/similarities in outcomes/characteristics.
Journal ArticleAn article published in an academic or professional journal that reports original research or scholarly analysis.
Randomized Controlled TrialA clinical trial that randomly assigns participants to treatment and control groups to evaluate the effects of an intervention.
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tResearch funding provided by government agencies outside the United States.

Overview

This study compared the effectiveness of three antibiotics in treating 424 patients with uncomplicated gonorrhea: 0.5 g cefodizime, 1 g cefodizime, and 1 g cefotaxime. All three antibiotics were highly effective in treating gonorrhea, with cure rates of 99-100%. Both cefodizime doses were equally effective. The study found that neither antibiotic consistently eliminated Chlamydia trachomatis infection. Both antibiotics were well-tolerated, with mild and temporary side effects in about 4% of patients. The study concludes that both cefodizime and cefotaxime are safe and effective treatments for uncomplicated gonorrhea.
Paper Details　
Original Abstract of the Article :
Uncomplicated urogenital and concomitant oropharyngeal gonorrhea in 424 male and female patients was treated in a randomized comparative study with 0.5 g of cefodizime (89 men and 54 women), 1 g of cefodizime (87 men and 52 women), or 1 g of cefotaxime (86 men and 56 women). The cure rates were 100%...See full text at original site
Dr.Camel IconDr.Camel's Paper Summary Blogラクダ博士について

ラクダ博士は、Health Journal が論文の内容を分かりやすく解説するために作成した架空のキャラクターです。
難解な医学論文を、専門知識のない方にも理解しやすいように、噛み砕いて説明することを目指しています。

* ラクダ博士による解説は、あくまで論文の要点をまとめたものであり、原論文の完全な代替となるものではありません。詳細な内容については、必ず原論文をご参照ください。
* ラクダ博士は架空のキャラクターであり、実際の医学研究者や医療従事者とは一切関係がありません。
* 解説の内容は Health Journal が独自に解釈・作成したものであり、原論文の著者または出版社の見解を反映するものではありません。


引用元：
https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.32.4.426

データ提供：米国国立医学図書館（NLM）

Cefodizime and Cefotaxime for Gonorrhea: A Duel in the Desert

This study, like a duel between two desert warriors, compares the effectiveness of two antibiotics, cefodizime and cefotaxime, in treating uncomplicated urogenital gonorrhea. The researchers are trying to determine which antibiotic emerges victorious in the battle against this sexually transmitted infection.

A Close Race

The results, like a closely contested desert race, show that both cefodizime and cefotaxime are highly effective in treating uncomplicated gonorrhea. The cure rates were nearly 100% for both antibiotics.

Fighting Infection: A Battle for Health

This study, like a strategic desert campaign, highlights the importance of choosing the right antibiotic to fight infection. It also emphasizes the need for safe and effective treatment options to protect our health and well-being.

Dr.Camel's Conclusion

This study offers valuable insights into the treatment of uncomplicated gonorrhea. It shows that both cefodizime and cefotaxime are potent weapons in the fight against this infection. It's like finding a hidden oasis in the desert, offering a safe haven and effective treatment for those facing this health challenge.

Date :
  1. Date Completed 1988-06-27
  2. Date Revised 2021-05-26
Further Info :

Pubmed ID

3377456

DOI: Digital Object Identifier

10.1128/AAC.32.4.426

Related Literature

Article Analysis
・Side Effects of cefotaxime injection
SNS
PICO Info
in preparation
Languages

English

Positive IndicatorAn AI analysis index that serves as a benchmark for how positive the results of the study are. Note that it is a benchmark and requires careful interpretation and consideration of different perspectives.

This site uses cookies. Visit our privacy policy page or click the link in any footer for more information and to change your preferences.