Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/77224
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorChanon Changratanakornen_US
dc.contributor.authorNapasawan Fasawangen_US
dc.contributor.authorBoriboon Chenthanakiten_US
dc.contributor.authorPakpoom Tansanthongen_US
dc.contributor.authorChanikarn Mapairojeen_US
dc.contributor.authorRatree Tunuden_US
dc.contributor.authorAnnop Pipopwongpisanen_US
dc.contributor.authorBorwon Wittayachamnankulen_US
dc.date.accessioned2022-10-16T07:24:51Z-
dc.date.available2022-10-16T07:24:51Z-
dc.date.issued2021-01-01en_US
dc.identifier.issn23834625en_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-85105162885en_US
dc.identifier.other10.15441/CEEM.20.110en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85105162885&origin=inwarden_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/77224-
dc.description.abstractObjective Centipede stings are a common problem in tropical countries. Current treatment guidelines do not include recommendations for antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent the associated bacterial infection since no previous study has assessed the effectiveness of antibiotic treatment in patients bitten by centipedes. Thus, this study aimed to compare the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis over placebo for the skin infections that occur after a centipede sting. Methods In this randomized, double-blind, multi-center clinical trial conducted in the emergency departments in four hospitals, patients with any history of a centipede sting were prospectively enrolled and divided randomly into two groups. One group received dicloxacillin and the other a placebo. The primary outcome was the incidence of wound infection 3 to 5 days after the centipede sting. Results From December 2014 to October 2015, a total of 83 patients were enrolled in the study and were randomized into antibiotic (n=43) and placebo (n=40) groups. Two patients in the antibiotic group developed wound infections, while none showed wound infection in the placebo group (5% vs. 0%). The wound infection rate did not differ significantly between the two groups (P=0.496). Conclusion Antibiotic prophylaxis may be unnecessary in cases of centipede stings. Proper wound care is an adequate and appropriate treatment for patients with centipede stings. However, the patient should be re-evaluated for detection of secondary bacterial infection.en_US
dc.subjectMedicineen_US
dc.subjectNursingen_US
dc.titleEffectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with centipede stings: A randomized controlled trialen_US
dc.typeJournalen_US
article.title.sourcetitleClinical and Experimental Emergency Medicineen_US
article.volume8en_US
article.stream.affiliationsChiang Mai Universityen_US
article.stream.affiliationsBanthi Hospitalen_US
article.stream.affiliationsWiang Nong Long Hospitalen_US
article.stream.affiliationsLi Hospitalen_US
Appears in Collections:CMUL: Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in CMUIR are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.