Azithromycin versus Cephalexin for Simple Traumatic Wounds in the Emergency Department: A Randomised Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate efficacy of azithromycin versus cephalexin for infection prophylaxisis in patients with simple traumatic wounds managed at emergency department. METHOD: This randomized controlled trial compared short-course therapy of once-daily azithromycin (500 mg before the wound repair followed by 250 mg/day for 5 days) with cephalexin (1000 mg before wound repair followed by 250 mg every 6 hours for 5 days) in the treatment of patients with simple traumatic wounds. A total of 366 patients were randomly selected for the study and 303 were evaluated for the final analysis. RESULTS: On completion of therapy, the rate of observed infection was 9.6% in the cephalexin group (15 patients, odds ratio=0.77, 95% confidence interval, 0.56 to 1.06) and 5.4% in the azithromycin group (8 patients, odds ratio 1.42, 95% confidence interval, 0.80 to 2.52). Both treatment indicated similar prophylactic efficacy during the study (P=0.197). CONCLUSION: Our study showed that Azithromycin as infection prophylaxis in simple traumatic wounds had the same effect as cephalexin but azithromycin is easier to use and more cost-effective compared to cephalexin.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".