Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 402

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A Double-Blind Comparison of Empirical Oral and Intravenous Antibiotic Therapy for Low-Risk Febrile Patients with Neutropenia during Cancer Chemotherapy

Freifeld, Alison, Marchigiani, Donna, Walsh, Thomas, Chanock, Stephen, Lewis, Linda, Hiemenz, John, Hiemenz, Sharon, Hicks, Jeanne E., Gill, Vee, Steinberg, Seth M., Pizzo, Philip A.·1999·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Among patients with fever and neutropenia during chemotherapy for cancer who have a low risk of complications, oral administration of empirical broad-spectrum antibiotics may be an acceptable alternative to intravenous treatment. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of patients (age, 5 to 74 years) who had fever and neutropenia during chemotherapy for cancer. Neutropenia was expected to be present for no more than 10 days in these patients, and they had to have no other underlying conditions. Patients were assigned to receive either oral ciprofloxacin plus amoxicillin-clavulanate or intravenous ceftazidime. They were hospitalized until fever and neutropenia resolved. RESULTS: A total of 116 episodes were included in each group (84 patients in the oral-therapy group and 79 patients in the intravenous-therapy group). The mean neutrophil counts at admission were 81 per cubic millimeter and 84 per cubic millimeter, respectively; the mean duration of neutropenia was 3.4 and 3.8 days, respectively. Treatment was successful without the need for modifications in 71 percent of episodes in the oral-therapy group and 67 percent of episodes in the intravenous-therapy group (difference between groups, 3 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, -8 percent to 15 percent; P=0.48). Treatment was considered to have failed because of the need for modifications in the regimen in 13 percent and 32 percent of episodes, respectively (P<0.001) and because of the patient's inability to tolerate the regimen in 16 percent and 1 percent of episodes, respectively (P<0.001). There were no deaths. The incidence of intolerance of the oral antibiotics was 16 percent, as compared with 8 percent for placebo (P=0.07). CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalized low-risk patients who have fever and neutropenia during cancer chemotherapy, empirical therapy with oral ciprofloxacin and amoxicillin-clavulanate is safe and effective.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejm199907293410501

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 402

Metadata

Authors
Freifeld, A., Marchigiani, D., Walsh, T., Chanock, S., Lewis, L., Hiemenz, J., Hiemenz, S., Hicks, J. E., Gill, V., Steinberg, S. M., & Pizzo, P. A.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
1999-07-29
Volume
341
Issue
5
Pages
305-311
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2319983332
Cited by
402
References
0
FWCI
11.84
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: A Double-Blind Comparison of Empirical Oral and Intravenous Antibiotic Therapy for Low-Risk Febrile Patients with Neutropenia during Cancer Chemotherapy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm199907293410501
The paper
Freifeld, A., Marchigiani, D., Walsh, T., Chanock, S., Lewis, L., Hiemenz, J., Hiemenz, S., Hicks, J. E., Gill, V., Steinberg, S. M., & Pizzo, P. A. (1999). A Double-Blind Comparison of Empirical Oral and Intravenous Antibiotic Therapy for Low-Risk Febrile Patients with Neutropenia during Cancer Chemotherapy. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199907293410501

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.