Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 938

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Oral versus Intravenous Antibiotics for Bone and Joint Infection

Open access
Li, Ho-Kwong, Rombach, Ines, Zambellas, Rhea, Walker, A. Sarah, McNally, Martin A., Atkins, Bridget L., Lipsky, Benjamin A., Hughes, Harriet C., Bose, Deepa, Kümin, Michelle, Scarborough, Claire, Matthews, Philippa C., Brent, Andrew J., Lomas, Jose, Gundle, Roger, Rogers, Mark, Taylor, Adrian, Angus, Brian, Byren, Ivor, Berendt, Anthony R., Warren, Simon, Fitzgerald, Fiona E., Mack, Damien J.F., Hopkins, Susan, Folb, Jonathan, Reynolds, Helen E., Moore, Elinor, Marshall, Jocelyn, Jenkins, Neil, Moran, Christopher E., Woodhouse, Andrew F., Stafford, Samantha, Seaton, R. Andrew, Vallance, Claire, Hemsley, Carolyn J., Bisnauthsing, Karen, Sandoe, Jonathan A.T., Aggarwal, Ila, Ellis, Simon C., Bunn, Deborah J., Sutherland, Rebecca K., Barlow, Gavin, Cooper, Cushla, Geue, Claudia, McMeekin, Nicola, Briggs, Andrew H., Sendi, Parham, Khatamzas, Elham, Wangrangsimakul, Tri, Wong, T.H. Nicholas, Barrett, Lucinda K., Alvand, Abtin, Old, C. Fraser, Bostock, Jennifer, Paul, John, Cooke, Graham, Thwaites, Guy E., Bejon, Philip, Scarborough, Matthew·2019·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The management of complex orthopedic infections usually includes a prolonged course of intravenous antibiotic agents. We investigated whether oral antibiotic therapy is noninferior to intravenous antibiotic therapy for this indication. METHODS: We enrolled adults who were being treated for bone or joint infection at 26 U.K. centers. Within 7 days after surgery (or, if the infection was being managed without surgery, within 7 days after the start of antibiotic treatment), participants were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous or oral antibiotics to complete the first 6 weeks of therapy. Follow-on oral antibiotics were permitted in both groups. The primary end point was definitive treatment failure within 1 year after randomization. In the analysis of the risk of the primary end point, the noninferiority margin was 7.5 percentage points. RESULTS: Among the 1054 participants (527 in each group), end-point data were available for 1015 (96.3%). Treatment failure occurred in 74 of 506 participants (14.6%) in the intravenous group and 67 of 509 participants (13.2%) in the oral group. Missing end-point data (39 participants, 3.7%) were imputed. The intention-to-treat analysis showed a difference in the risk of definitive treatment failure (oral group vs. intravenous group) of -1.4 percentage points (90% confidence interval [CI], -4.9 to 2.2; 95% CI, -5.6 to 2.9), indicating noninferiority. Complete-case, per-protocol, and sensitivity analyses supported this result. The between-group difference in the incidence of serious adverse events was not significant (146 of 527 participants [27.7%] in the intravenous group and 138 of 527 [26.2%] in the oral group; P=0.58). Catheter complications, analyzed as a secondary end point, were more common in the intravenous group (9.4% vs. 1.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Oral antibiotic therapy was noninferior to intravenous antibiotic therapy when used during the first 6 weeks for complex orthopedic infection, as assessed by treatment failure at 1 year. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research; OVIVA Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN91566927 .).

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/nejmoa1710926

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

1 retracted

Show all 24 references

Cited by

See all 938

Metadata

Authors
Li, H.-K., Rombach, I., Zambellas, R., Walker, A. S., McNally, M. A., Atkins, B. L., Lipsky, B. A., Hughes, H. C., Bose, D., Kümin, M., Scarborough, C., Matthews, P. C., Brent, A. J., Lomas, J., Gundle, R., Rogers, M., Taylor, A., Angus, B., Byren, I., Berendt, A. R., Warren, S., Fitzgerald, F. E., Mack, D. J. F., Hopkins, S., Folb, J., Reynolds, H. E., Moore, E., Marshall, J., Jenkins, N., Moran, C. E., Woodhouse, A. F., Stafford, S., Seaton, R. A., Vallance, C., Hemsley, C. J., Bisnauthsing, K., Sandoe, J. A. T., Aggarwal, I., Ellis, S. C., Bunn, D. J., Sutherland, R. K., Barlow, G., Cooper, C., Geue, C., McMeekin, N., Briggs, A. H., Sendi, P., Khatamzas, E., Wangrangsimakul, T., Wong, T. H. N., Barrett, L. K., Alvand, A., Old, C. F., Bostock, J., Paul, J., Cooke, G., Thwaites, G. E., Bejon, P., & Scarborough, M.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2019-01-31
Volume
380
Issue
5
Pages
425-436
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2914477527
Cited by
938
References
24
FWCI
87.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Oral versus Intravenous Antibiotics for Bone and Joint Infection. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa1710926
The paper
Li, H.-K., Rombach, I., Zambellas, R., Walker, A. S., McNally, M. A., Atkins, B. L., Lipsky, B. A., Hughes, H. C., Bose, D., Kümin, M., Scarborough, C., Matthews, P. C., Brent, A. J., Lomas, J., Gundle, R., Rogers, M., Taylor, A., Angus, B., Byren, I., . . . Scarborough, M. (2019). Oral versus Intravenous Antibiotics for Bone and Joint Infection. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1710926

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.