Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 416

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Reattendance and complications in a randomised trial of prescribing strategies for sore throat: the medicalising effect of prescribing antibiotics

Open access
Little, P, Gould, C, Williamson, I, Warner, G, Gantley, M, Kinmonth, A L·1997·BMJ

Abstract

Objective: To assess the medicalising effect of prescribing antibiotics for sore throat. Setting: 11 general practices in England. Design: Randomised trial of three approaches to sore throat: a 10 day prescription of antibiotics, no antibiotics, or a delayed prescription if the sore throat had not started to settle after three days. Patients: 716 patients aged 4 and over with sore throat and an abnormal physical sign: 84% had tonsillitis or pharyngitis. Outcome measures: Number and rate of patients making a first return with sore throat, pharyngitis, or tonsillitis. Early returns (within two weeks) and complications (otitis media, sinusitis, quinsy). Outcomes were documented in 675 subjects (94%). Results: Mean follow up time was similar (antibiotic group 1.07 years, other two groups 1.03 years). More of those initially prescribed antibiotics initially returned to the surgery with sore throat (38% v 27%, adjusted hazard ratio for return 1.39, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.89). Antibiotics prescribed for sore throat during the previous year had an additional effect (hazard ratio 1.69, 1.20 to 2.37). Longer duration of illness (> 5 days) was associated with increased return within six weeks (hazard ratio 2.90, 1.70 to 4.92). Prior attendance with upper respiratory conditions was also associated with increased reattendance. There was no difference between groups in early return (13/238 (5.5%) v 27/437 (6%)), or complications (2/236 (0.8%) v 3/434 (0.7%)). Conclusions: Complications and early return resulting from no or delayed prescribing of antibiotics for sore throat are rare. Both current and previous prescribing for sore throat increase reattendance. To avoid medicalising a self limiting illness doctors should avoid antibiotics or offer a delayed prescription for most patients with sore throat. Key messages: Sore throat is one of the commonest presentations of upper respiratory illness in primary care and attendence is increasing Complications are rare with no, or delayed, antibiotic prescription Prescribing antibiotics increases reattendance for future episodes Unless patients are very ill general practitioners should consider exploring concerns, explain the natural history, and avoid or delay prescribing antibiotics

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 · 10.1136/bmj.315.7104.350

Cites

5 of 5 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 5 references

Cited by

See all 416

Metadata

Authors
Little, P., Gould, C., Williamson, I., Warner, G., Gantley, M., & Kinmonth, A. L.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1997-08-09
Volume
315
Issue
7104
Pages
350-352
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W1976124623
Cited by
416
References
5
FWCI
14.94
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: Reattendance and complications in a randomised trial of prescribing strategies for sore throat: the medicalising effect of prescribing antibiotics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.315.7104.350
The paper
Little, P., Gould, C., Williamson, I., Warner, G., Gantley, M., & Kinmonth, A. L. (1997). Reattendance and complications in a randomised trial of prescribing strategies for sore throat: the medicalising effect of prescribing antibiotics. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7104.350

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.