Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 270

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Randomized, Double-Blind Trial Comparing Ceftobiprole Medocaril with Vancomycin plus Ceftazidime for the Treatment of Patients with Complicated Skin and Skin-Structure Infections

Noel, G. J., Bush, K., Bagchi, P., Ianus, J., Strauss, R. S.·2008·Clinical Infectious Diseases

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial involving patients with a broad range of complicated skin and skin-structure infections due to either gram-positive or gram-negative bacteria was conducted to compare ceftobiprole monotherapy with treatment with vancomycin plus ceftazidime. METHODS: Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive ceftobiprole or to receive vancomycin plus ceftazidime. Outcomes were determined at a test-of-cure visit (7-14 days after completion of therapy) and were analyzed for all patients with complicated skin and skin-structure infections, as well as for subgroups, on the basis of major types of infections and severity of disease. RESULTS: Among the clinically evaluable and the intent-to-treat populations, clinical cure rates at the test-of-cure visit were similar in the ceftobiprole and comparator treatment arms (clinical cure rate, 90.5% [439 of 485 patients] and 90.2% [220 of 244 patients] in the clinically evaluable population, respectively; 81.9% [448 of 547 patients] and 80.8% [227 of 281 patients] in the intent-to-treat population, respectively). Clinical cure rates in ceftobiprole-treated patients ranged from 86.2% (125 of 145 patients) among those with diabetes who had foot infections to 93.0% (80 of 86 patients) among those with cellulitis. Among patients treated with ceftobiprole, clinical cure rates were similar among patients from whom gram-negative bacteria were isolated (87.9% [109 of 124 patients]) and among patients from whom gram-positive bacteria were isolated (91.8% [292 of 318 patients]) and were not statistically different from the clinical cure rates among comparator-treated patients (89.7% [61 of 68 patients] and 90.3% [149 of 165 patients], respectively). Rates of adverse events and serious adverse events in the 2 treatment groups were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Ceftobiprole monotherapy is as effective as vancomycin plus ceftazidime for treating patients with a broad range of complicated skin and skin-structure infections and infections due to gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria.

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 · 10.1086/526527

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 270

Metadata

Authors
Noel, G. J., Bush, K., Bagchi, P., Ianus, J., & Strauss, R. S.
Venue
Clinical Infectious Diseases
Published
2008-03-01
Volume
46
Issue
5
Pages
647-655
ISSN
  • 1058-4838 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-6591
OpenAlex
W2109915370
Cited by
270
References
2
FWCI
23.87
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 Randomized, Double-Blind Trial Comparing Ceftobiprole Medocaril with Vancomycin plus Ceftazidime for the Treatment of Patients with Complicated Skin and Skin-Structure Infections. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/526527
The paper
Noel, G. J., Bush, K., Bagchi, P., Ianus, J., & Strauss, R. S. (2008). A Randomized, Double-Blind Trial Comparing Ceftobiprole Medocaril with Vancomycin plus Ceftazidime for the Treatment of Patients with Complicated Skin and Skin-Structure Infections. Clinical Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1086/526527

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.