Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 178

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Guidelines for the treatment of dysentery (shigellosis): a systematic review of the evidence

Open access
Williams, Phoebe C. M., Berkley, James A.·2018·Paediatrics and International Child Health

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Shigella remains the primary cause of diarrhoea in paediatric patients worldwide and accounts for up to 40,000 deaths per year. Current guidelines for the treatment of shigellosis are based on data which are over a decade old. In an era of increasing antimicrobial resistance, an updated review of the appropriate empirical therapy for shigellosis in children is necessary, taking into account susceptibility patterns, cost and the risk of adverse events. METHODS: A systematic review of the current published literature on the treatment of shigella dysentery was undertaken in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). RESULTS: The initial search produced 131 results, of which nine studies met the inclusion criteria. The quality of the studies was assessed as per the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines. International guidelines were also reviewed. There is a lack of current research regarding the clinical treatment of shigellosis in paediatric and adult patients, despite rising antimicrobial resistance worldwide. In particular, there is a lack of studies assessing the non-susceptibility of community-acquired strains, with almost all published research pertaining to microbiological data from hospital-based settings. DISCUSSION: Current WHO guidelines support the use of fluoroquinolones (first-line), β-lactams (second-line) and cephalosporins (second-line) which accords with currently available evidence and other international guidelines, and there is no strong evidence for changing this guidance. Azithromycin is appropriate as a second-line therapy in regions where the rate of non-susceptibility of ciprofloxacin is known to be high, and research suggests that, from a cardiac point of view, azithromycin is safer than other macrolide antibiotics. Cefixime is also a reasonable alternative, although its use must be weighed against the risk of dissemination of extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing organisms.

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 · 10.1080/20469047.2017.1409454

Cites

4 of 4 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

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 178

Metadata

Authors
Williams, P. C. M., & Berkley, J. A.
Venue
Paediatrics and International Child Health
Published
2018-05-23
Volume
38
Issue
sup1
Pages
S50-S65
ISSN
  • 2046-9047 (ISSN-L)
  • 2046-9055
OpenAlex
W2809537136
Cited by
178
References
4
FWCI
2.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Guidelines for the treatment of dysentery (shigellosis): a systematic review of the evidence. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/20469047.2017.1409454
The paper
Williams, P. C. M., & Berkley, J. A. (2018). Guidelines for the treatment of dysentery (shigellosis): a systematic review of the evidence. Paediatrics and International Child Health. https://doi.org/10.1080/20469047.2017.1409454

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.