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
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.
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
Cites
Advances in diagnostic imaging and overestimations of disease prevalence and the benefits of therapy
Black, W. C., & Welch, H. G. (1993) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199304293281706 · Cited by 547
Cited by
Weese, J. S., Blondeau, J., Boothe, D., Guardabassi, L. G., Gumley, N., Papich, M., Jessen, L. R., Lappin, M., Rankin, S., Westropp, J. L., et al. (2019) · The Veterinary Journal · doi:10.1016/j.tvjl.2019.02.008 · Cited by 470
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
- Publisher
- American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)
- 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.