Latest & greatest articles for clindamycin

The Trip Database is a leading resource to help health professionals find trustworthy answers to their clinical questions. Users can access the latest research evidence and guidance to answer their clinical questions. We have a large collection of systematic reviews, clinical guidelines, regulatory guidance, clinical trials and many other forms of evidence. If you wanted the latest trusted evidence on clindamycin or other clinical topics then use Trip today.

This page lists the very latest high quality evidence on clindamycin and also the most popular articles. Popularity measured by the number of times the articles have been clicked on by fellow users in the last twelve months.

What is Trip?

Trip is a clinical search engine designed to allow users to quickly and easily find and use high-quality research evidence to support their practice and/or care.

Trip has been online since 1997 and in that time has developed into the internet’s premier source of evidence-based content. Our motto is ‘Find evidence fast’ and this is something we aim to deliver for every single search.

As well as research evidence we also allow clinicians to search across other content types including images, videos, patient information leaflets, educational courses and news.

For further information on Trip click on any of the questions/sections on the left-hand side of this page. But if you still have questions please contact us via jon.brassey@tripdatabase.com

Top results for clindamycin

21. Toxicity of clindamycin as prophylaxis for AIDS-associated toxoplasmic encephalitis. Community Programs for Clinical Research on AIDS.

Toxicity of clindamycin as prophylaxis for AIDS-associated toxoplasmic encephalitis. Community Programs for Clinical Research on AIDS. 1346413 1992 03 03 1992 03 03 2015 06 16 0140-6736 339 8789 1992 Feb 08 Lancet (London, England) Lancet Toxicity of clindamycin as prophylaxis for AIDS-associated toxoplasmic encephalitis. Community Programs for Clinical Research on AIDS. 333-4 A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was set up to compare clindamycin and pyrimethamine as prophylaxis (...) for toxoplasmic encephalitis (TE) in HIV-infected patients at risk of the disorder. Interim analysis showed that clindamycin-treated patients were 4.4 (95% confidence interval 1.3-15.2) times more likely to experience an adverse effect that necessitated withdrawal of the study drug than those who received placebo. Diarrhoea and rash were reported in 16 (31%) and 11 (21%), respectively, of 52 patients treated with clindamycin (300 mg twice daily) compared with 2 (6%; p = 0.06) and none (p = 0.01) of the 32

Lancet1992

22. Prevention of recurrent staphylococcal skin infections with low-dose oral clindamycin therapy.

Prevention of recurrent staphylococcal skin infections with low-dose oral clindamycin therapy. 3184334 1988 12 07 1988 12 07 2016 10 17 0098-7484 260 18 1988 Nov 11 JAMA JAMA Prevention of recurrent staphylococcal skin infections with low-dose oral clindamycin therapy. 2682-5 We conducted a double-blind, controlled trial of low-dose (150 mg/d) oral clindamycin hydrochloride vs placebo to prevent recurrent staphylococcal skin infections. Twenty-two patients (11 in both the placebo (...) and clindamycin treatment groups) completed the trial and were assessable. The two groups did not differ as to age, sex, race, or the number of recurrent abscesses preceding the trial. In pretrial evaluations, no patient had hypogammaglobulinemia or abnormal neutrophil function. Sixty-four percent (7/11) of the placebo-treated patients had a recurrent abscess within three months of enrollment whereas 82% (9/11) of the patients treated with clindamycin were free of any infection during the three-month

JAMA1988

23. Imipenem/cilastatin versus gentamicin/clindamycin for treatment of serious bacterial infections. Report from a Scandinavian Study Group.

Imipenem/cilastatin versus gentamicin/clindamycin for treatment of serious bacterial infections. Report from a Scandinavian Study Group. 6143185 1984 05 23 1984 05 23 2015 06 16 0140-6736 1 8382 1984 Apr 21 Lancet (London, England) Lancet Imipenem/cilastatin versus gentamicin/clindamycin for treatment of serious bacterial infections. Report from a Scandinavian Study Group. 868-71 In a randomised, coordinated six-centre study 163 patients with serious systemic infections received treatment (...) with either imipenem (N-formimidoyl thienamycin) plus cilastatin, an inhibitor of its renal metabolism (77, I/C group) or gentamicin and clindamycin (86, G/C group); 56 and 62, respectively, were evaluable. Significantly more G/C than I/C patients failed to respond to treatment (9 vs 2) and 1 G/C patient died of infection. The frequency of elimination of causative pathogens was higher in the I/C group (88% vs 77%). Clinical and biochemical adverse reactions were less common in the I/C than the G/C group

Lancet1984

24. Prophylaxis of streptococcal infections and rheumatic fever: a comparison of orally administered clindamycin and penicillin.

Prophylaxis of streptococcal infections and rheumatic fever: a comparison of orally administered clindamycin and penicillin. 372593 1979 06 26 1979 06 26 2016 10 17 0098-7484 241 15 1979 Apr 13 JAMA JAMA Prophylaxis of streptococcal infections and rheumatic fever: a comparison of orally administered clindamycin and penicillin. 1589-94 Orally administered clindamycin and penicillin were compared for effectiveness in preventing streptococcal infections in 202 randomly assigned patients (...) with previous rheumatic fever (RF). Among 143 patients aged 21 years or younger observed for 537 patient-years, the number of streptococcal infections (and number per patient-year) was 23 (0.084) in the penicillin group and 12 (0.045) in the clindamycin group. Excluding uncooperative patients, the rate of streptococcal infection remained less, though not statistically significant, in the clindamycin group than in the penicillin group. Two RF recurrences occurred in the penicillin group, and no recurrence

JAMA1979