The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparison between pathogen directed antibiotic treatment and empirical broad spectrum antibiotic treatment in patients with community acquired pneumonia: a prospective randomised study
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: There is much controversy about the ideal approach to the management of community acquired pneumonia (CAP). Recommendations differ from a pathogen directed approach to an empirical strategy with broad spectrum antibiotics. METHODS: In a prospective randomised open study performed between 1998 and 2000, a pathogen directed treatment (PDT) approach was compared with an empirical broad spectrum antibiotic treatment (EAT) strategy according to the ATS guidelines of 1993 in 262 hospitalised patients with CAP. Clinical efficacy was primarily determined by the length of hospital stay (LOS). Secondary outcome parameters for clinical efficacy were assessment of therapeutic failure on antibiotics, 30 day mortality, duration of antibiotic treatment, resolution of fever, side effects, and quality of life. RESULTS: Three hundred and three patients were enrolled in the study; 41 were excluded, leaving 262 with results available for analysis. No significant differences were found between the two treatment groups in LOS, 30 day mortality, clinical failure, or resolution of fever. Side effects, although they did not have a significant influence on the outcome parameters, occurred more frequently in patients in the EAT group than in those in the PDT group (60% v 17%, 95% CI -0.5 to -0.3; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: An EAT strategy with broad spectrum antibiotics for the management of hospitalised patients with CAP has comparable clinical efficacy to a PDT approach.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Metlay, J. P., Waterer, G. W., Long, A. C., Anzueto, A., Brozek, J., Crothers, K., Cooley, L. A., Dean, N. C., Fine, M. J., Flanders, S. A., et al. (2019) · American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1164/rccm.201908-1581st · Cited by 3,657
Prina, E., Ranzani, O. T., & Torres, A. (2015) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(15)60733-4 · Cited by 516
Snijders, D., Daniels, J. M. A., de Graaff, C. S., van der Werf, T. S., & Boersma, W. G. (2010) · American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1164/rccm.200905-0808oc · Cited by 295
Metadata
- Authors
- van der Eerden, M. M.
- Venue
- Thorax
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2005-08-01
- Volume
- 60
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 672-678
- ISSN
- 0040-6376 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2114539533
- Cited by
- 194
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.36
- 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: Comparison between pathogen directed antibiotic treatment and empirical broad spectrum antibiotic treatment in patients with community acquired pneumonia: a prospective randomised study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/thx.2004.030411
- The paper
- van der Eerden, M. M. (2005). Comparison between pathogen directed antibiotic treatment and empirical broad spectrum antibiotic treatment in patients with community acquired pneumonia: a prospective randomised study. Thorax. https://doi.org/10.1136/thx.2004.030411
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.