Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 530

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Oral Versus Initial Intravenous Therapy for Urinary Tract Infections in Young Febrile Children

Hoberman, Alejandro, Wald, Ellen R., Hickey, Robert W., Baskin, Marc, Charron, Martin, Majd, Massoud, Kearney, Diana H., Reynolds, Ellen A., Ruley, Jerry, Janosky, Janine E.·1999·Pediatrics

Abstract

Background.: The standard recommendation for treatment of young, febrile children with urinary tract infection has been hospitalization for intravenous antimicrobials. The availability of potent, oral, third-generation cephalosporins as well as interest in cost containment and avoidance of nosocomial risks prompted evaluation of the safety and efficacy of outpatient therapy. Methods.: In a multicenter, randomized clinical trial, we evaluated the efficacy of oral versus initial intravenous therapy in 306 children 1 to 24 months old with fever and urinary tract infection, in terms of short-term clinical outcomes (sterilization of the urine and defervescence) and long-term morbidity (incidence of reinfection and incidence and extent of renal scarring documented at 6 months by99mTc-dimercaptosuccinic acid renal scans). Children received either oral cefixime for 14 days (double dose on day 1) or initial intravenous cefotaxime for 3 days followed by oral cefixime for 11 days. Results.: Treatment groups were comparable regarding demographic, clinical, and laboratory characteristics. Bacteremia was present in 3.4% of children treated orally and 5.3% of children treated intravenously. Of the short-term outcomes, 1) repeat urine cultures were sterile within 24 hours in all children, and 2) mean time to defervescence was 25 and 24 hours for children treated orally and intravenously, respectively. Of the long-term outcomes, 1) symptomatic reinfections occurred in 4.6% of children treated orally and 7.2% of children treated intravenously, 2) renal scarring at 6 months was noted in 9.8% children treated orally versus 7.2% of children treated intravenously, and 3) mean extent of scarring was ∼8% in both treatment groups. Mean costs were at least twofold higher for children treated intravenously ($3577 vs $1473) compared with those treated orally. Conclusions.: Oral cefixime can be recommended as a safe and effective treatment for children with fever and urinary tract infection. Use of cefixime will result in substantial reductions of health care expenditures.

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 · 10.1542/peds.104.1.79

Cites

1 of 1 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

Cited by

See all 530

Metadata

Authors
Hoberman, A., Wald, E. R., Hickey, R. W., Baskin, M., Charron, M., Majd, M., Kearney, D. H., Reynolds, E. A., Ruley, J., & Janosky, J. E.
Venue
Pediatrics
Published
1999-07-01
Volume
104
Issue
1
Pages
79-86
ISSN
  • 0031-4005 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-4275
OpenAlex
W2117061177
Cited by
530
References
1
FWCI
20.06
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: Oral Versus Initial Intravenous Therapy for Urinary Tract Infections in Young Febrile Children. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1542/peds.104.1.79
The paper
Hoberman, A., Wald, E. R., Hickey, R. W., Baskin, M., Charron, M., Majd, M., Kearney, D. H., Reynolds, E. A., Ruley, J., & Janosky, J. E. (1999). Oral Versus Initial Intravenous Therapy for Urinary Tract Infections in Young Febrile Children. Pediatrics. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.104.1.79

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.