A Double-Blind Comparison of Ciprofloxacin and Amoxycillin/ Clavulanic Acid in the Treatment of Chronic Sinusitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A total of 251 adults with chronic sinusitis were enrolled into this prospective multicentre, double-blind, double-placebo comparison of ciprofloxacin (500 mg twice daily) with amoxycillin/clavulanic acid (500 mg three times daily). The diagnosis of chronic sinusitis (persistence of clinical symptoms for at least 3 months) was confirmed by computerized tomography scan and/or sinusoscopy prior to therapy. Patients at inclusion had purulent or muco-purulent rhinorrhoea. Staphylococcus aureus (n = 45), Haemophilus influenzae (n = 35), Streptococcus pneumoniae (n = 32) and enterobacteriaceae (n = 31) were isolated from pre-treatment aspirates of the middle meatus. Treatment lasted 9 days, at the end of which nasal discharge disappeared in 71/118 (60.2%) patients of the ciprofloxacin group and 69/123 (56.1%) of those in the amoxycillin/clavulanic acid group. The clinical cure and bacteriological eradication rates were 58.6% versus 51.2% and 88.9% versus 90.5% for ciprofloxacin and amoxycillin/clavulanic acid, respectively. These differences were not significant, however, amongst patients who had a positive initial culture and who were evaluated 40 days after treatment. Ciprofloxacin recipients had a significantly higher cure rate than those treated with amoxycillin/clavulanic acid (83.3% vs. 67.6%, p = 0.043). Clinical tolerance was significantly better with ciprofloxacin (p = 0.012), essentially due to a large number of gastro-intestinal related side-effects in the amoxycillin/clavulanic acid group (n = 35). Ciprofloxacin proved to be at least as effective as amoxycillin/clavulanic acid. The superior safety profile, a twice daily dosage regimen, suggests that ciprofloxacin may be a useful therapeutic alternative for the treatment of chronic sinusitis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".