The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparison of Short-Course (5 Days) and Standard (10 Days) Treatment for Uncomplicated Cellulitis
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cellulitis is a condition routinely encountered in the primary care setting. No previous study has compared a short (5 days) vs standard (10 days) course of therapy of the same antibiotic in patients with uncomplicated cellulitis. METHODS: We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to determine if 5 days of therapy has equal efficacy to 10 days of therapy for patients with cellulitis. Of 121 enrolled subjects evaluated after 5 days of therapy for cellulitis, 43 were randomized to receive 5 more days of levofloxacin therapy (10 days total antibiotic treatment), and 44 subjects to receive 5 more days of placebo therapy (5 days of total antibiotic treatment). Levofloxacin was given at a dose of 500 mg/d. Subjects were not randomized if they had worsening cellulitis, a persistent nidus of infection, a lack of any clinical improvement, or abscess formation within the first 5 days of therapy. The main outcome measure was resolution of cellulitis at 14 days, with absence of relapse by 28 days, after study enrollment. RESULTS: Eighty-seven subjects were randomized and analyzed by intention to treat. There was no significant difference in clinical outcome between the 2 courses of therapy (success in 42 [98%] of 43 subjects receiving 10 days of antibiotic, and 43 [98%] of 44 subjects receiving 5 days of antibiotic) at both 14 and 28 days of therapy. CONCLUSION: In patients with uncomplicated cellulitis, 5 days of therapy with levofloxacin appears to be as effective as 10 days of therapy.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock: 2016.
Rhodes, A., Evans, L. E., Alhazzani, W., Levy, M. M., Antonelli, M., Ferrer, R., Kumar, A., Sevransky, J. E., Sprung, C. L., Nunnally, M. E., et al. (2017) · Intensive Care Medicine · doi:10.1007/s00134-017-4683-6 · Cited by 6,621
Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock: 2016.
Rhodes, A., Evans, L. E., Alhazzani, W., Levy, M. M., Antonelli, M., Ferrer, R., Kumar, A., Sevransky, J. E., Sprung, C. L., Nunnally, M. E., et al. (2017) · Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000002255 · Cited by 3,652
Stevens, D. L., Bisno, A. L., Chambers, H. F., Dellinger, E. P., Goldstein, E. J. C., Gorbach, S. L., Hirschmann, J. V., Kaplan, S. L., Montoya, J. G., & Wade, J. C. (2014) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/cid/ciu296 · Cited by 2,780
Clinical Impact of Staphylococcus aureus Skin and Soft Tissue Infections
Linz, M. S., Mattappallil, A., Finkel, D., & Parker, D. (2023) · Antibiotics · doi:10.3390/antibiotics12030557 · Cited by 293
The new antibiotic mantra-“shorter is better”.
Spellberg, B. (2016) · JAMA Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.3646 · Cited by 291
Metadata
- Authors
- Hepburn, M. J., Dooley, D. P., Skidmore, P. J., Ellis, M. W., Starnes, W. F., & Hasewinkle, W. C.
- Venue
- Archives of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2004-08-09
- Volume
- 164
- Issue
- 15
- Pages
- 1669
- ISSN
- 0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2125737625
- Cited by
- 240
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of Short-Course (5 Days) and Standard (10 Days) Treatment for Uncomplicated Cellulitis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archinte.164.15.1669
- The paper
- Hepburn, M. J., Dooley, D. P., Skidmore, P. J., Ellis, M. W., Starnes, W. F., & Hasewinkle, W. C. (2004). Comparison of Short-Course (5 Days) and Standard (10 Days) Treatment for Uncomplicated Cellulitis. Archives of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.164.15.1669
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.