Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 192

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Results of a Randomized Trial Comparing Sequential Intravenous/Oral Treatment with Ciprofloxacin Plus Metronidazole to Imipenem/Cilastatin for Intra-Abdominal Infections

Open access
Solomkin, Joseph S., Reinhart, Harald H., Dellinger, E. Patchen, Bohnen, John M., Rotstein, Ori D., Vogel, Stephen B., Simms, H. Hank, Hill, Carol S., Bjornson, H. Stephen, Haverstock, Daniel C., Coulter, Holly O., Echols, Roger M.·1996·Annals of Surgery

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: In a randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial, ciprofloxacin/metronidazole was compared with imipenem/cilastatin for treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections. A secondary objective was to demonstrate the ability to switch responding patients from intravenous (IV) to oral (PO) therapy. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Intra-abdominal infections result in substantial morbidity, mortality, and cost. Antimicrobial therapy often includes a 7- to 10-day intravenous course. The use of oral antimicrobials is a recent advance due to the availability of agents with good tissue pharmacokinetics and potent aerobic gram-negative activity. METHODS: Patients were randomized to either ciprofloxacin plus metronidazole intravenously (CIP/MTZ IV) or imipenem intravenously (IMI IV) throughout their treatment course, or ciprofloxacin plus metronidazole intravenously and treatment with oral ciprofloxacin plus metronidazole when oral feeding was resumed (CIP/MTZ IV/PO). RESULTS: Among 671 patients who constituted the intent-to-treat population, overall success rates were as follows: 82% for the group treated with CIP/MTZ IV; 84% for the CIP/MTZ IV/PO group; and 82% for the IMI IV group. For 330 valid patients, treatment success occurred in 84% of patients treated with CIP/MTZ IV, 86% of those treated with CIP/MTZ IV/PO, and 81% of the patients treated with IMI IV. Analysis of microbiology in the 30 patients undergoing intervention after treatment failure suggested that persistence of gram-negative organisms was more common in the IMI IV-treated patients who subsequently failed. Of 46 CIP/MTZ IV/PO patients (active oral arm), treatment success occurred in 96%, compared with 89% for those treated with CIP/MTZ IV and 89% for those receiving IMI IV. Patients who received intravenous/oral therapy were treated, overall, for an average of 8.6 +/- 3.6 days, with an average of 4.0 +/- 3.0 days of oral treatment. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate statistical equivalence between CIP/MTZ IV and IMI IV in both the intent-to-treat and valid populations. Conversion to oral therapy with CIP/MTZ appears as effective as continued intravenous therapy in patients able to tolerate oral feedings.

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 · 10.1097/00000658-199603000-00012

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 192

Metadata

Authors
Solomkin, J. S., Reinhart, H. H., Dellinger, E. P., Bohnen, J. M., Rotstein, O. D., Vogel, S. B., Simms, H. H., Hill, C. S., Bjornson, H. S., Haverstock, D. C., Coulter, H. O., & Echols, R. M.
Venue
Annals of Surgery
Published
1996-03
Volume
223
Issue
3
Pages
303-315
ISSN
0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W79859890
Cited by
192
References
0
FWCI
9.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Results of a Randomized Trial Comparing Sequential Intravenous/Oral Treatment with Ciprofloxacin Plus Metronidazole to Imipenem/Cilastatin for Intra-Abdominal Infections. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00000658-199603000-00012
The paper
Solomkin, J. S., Reinhart, H. H., Dellinger, E. P., Bohnen, J. M., Rotstein, O. D., Vogel, S. B., Simms, H. H., Hill, C. S., Bjornson, H. S., Haverstock, D. C., Coulter, H. O., & Echols, R. M. (1996). Results of a Randomized Trial Comparing Sequential Intravenous/Oral Treatment with Ciprofloxacin Plus Metronidazole to Imipenem/Cilastatin for Intra-Abdominal Infections. Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-199603000-00012

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.