107 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1558322)
21. Ampicillin plus sulbactam in vitro activity against anaerobes.
Heilmann F; Heizmann W; Werner H
Drugs; 1988; 35 Suppl 7():84-8. PubMed ID: 3220012
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
22. A randomized, double-blind comparison of sulbactam/ampicillin and clindamycin for the treatment of aerobic and aerobic-anaerobic infections.
Reinhardt JF; Johnston L; Ruane P; Johnson CC; Ingram-drake L; MacDonald K; Ward KW; Mathisen G; George WL; Finegold SM
Rev Infect Dis; 1986; 8 Suppl 5():S569-75. PubMed ID: 3026005
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Comparison of cefoxitin, cefotetan and the combination of ampicillin with sulbactam in the therapy of polymicrobial infection in mice.
Brook I
J Antimicrob Chemother; 1994 Nov; 34(5):791-6. PubMed ID: 7706175
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Comparison of the pharmacodynamic activity of cefotaxime plus metronidazole with cefoxitin and ampicillin plus sulbactam.
Sullivan MC; Nightingale CH; Quintiliani R; Sweeney KR
Pharmacotherapy; 1995; 15(4):479-86. PubMed ID: 7479201
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Sulbactam/ampicillin in the treatment of acute pelvic inflammatory disease.
Sweet RL; Landers DV; Schachter J; Crombleholme WR
Suppl Int J Gynecol Obstet; 1989; 2():13-9; discussion 47-8. PubMed ID: 2803578
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Study of fungal and bacterial infections of the diabetic foot.
Chincholikar DA; Pal RB
Indian J Pathol Microbiol; 2002 Jan; 45(1):15-22. PubMed ID: 12593559
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Comparison of cefoxitin, cefotetan, and ampicillin/sulbactam as prophylaxis for polymicrobial infection in mice.
Brook I
Clin Infect Dis; 1995 Jun; 20 Suppl 2():S376-7. PubMed ID: 7548603
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
28. Comparative in vitro activity of cefoxitin vs. cefotetan against clinical isolates of Bacteroides and Prevotella species.
Grossmeyer TJ; Farmer SG
Clin Infect Dis; 1993 Jun; 16 Suppl 4():S353-6. PubMed ID: 8324146
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. In vitro activities of antibacterial agents against clinical isolates of Escherichia coli and Klebsiella species from intensive care units.
Gill CJ; Ponticas S; Shungu DL; Guerriero S
Clin Ther; 1991; 13(1):25-37. PubMed ID: 2029725
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Serum bactericidal activity against aerobes and anaerobes of volunteers receiving cefoxitin or cefotetan.
Cruciani M; Navarra A; Bono L; Concia E
J Chemother; 1989 Jul; 1(4 Suppl):101-2. PubMed ID: 16312323
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. Ampicillin/sulbactam versus cefazolin or cefoxitin in the treatment of skin and skin-structure infections of bacterial etiology.
Chan JC
Adv Ther; 1995; 12(2):139-46. PubMed ID: 10150324
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Sulbactam/ampicillin versus cefoxitin for uncomplicated and complicated acute pelvic inflammatory disease.
Hemsell DL; Heard MC; Hemsell PG; Nobles BJ
Drugs; 1988; 35 Suppl 7():39-42. PubMed ID: 3220008
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Comparative in vitro antimicrobial activity of a novel quinolone, garenoxacin, against aerobic and anaerobic microbial isolates recovered from general, vascular, cardiothoracic and otolaryngologic surgical patients.
Edmiston CE; Krepel CJ; Kehl KS; Seabrook GR; Somberg LB; Almassi GH; Smith TL; Loehrl TA; Brown KR; Lewis BD; Towne JB
J Antimicrob Chemother; 2005 Nov; 56(5):872-8. PubMed ID: 16186167
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Susceptibility trends of Bacteroides fragilis group isolates from Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Fernández Canigia L; Castello L; Di Martino A; Greco G; Legaria MC; Litterio M; Predari SC; Rollet R; Rossetti A; Carloni G; Sarchi MI; Bianchini H
Rev Argent Microbiol; 2007; 39(3):156-60. PubMed ID: 17987852
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. [A combination of ampicillin and sulbactam: effect on aerobic and anaerobic gram-negative bacteria].
González C; García A; Urrea R; del Solar E; Bello H; Zemelman R
Rev Med Chil; 1990 May; 118(5):548-54. PubMed ID: 2293275
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Prevalence of pathogens in diabetic foot infection in South Indian type 2 diabetic patients.
Viswanathan V; Jasmine JJ; Snehalatha C; Ramachandran A
J Assoc Physicians India; 2002 Aug; 50():1013-6. PubMed ID: 12421021
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Antimicrobial susceptibility of anaerobic and aerobic bacteria isolated from patients with mixed infections in Nicaragua.
Cáceres M; Carrera E; Palma A; Berrios G; Weintraub A; Nord CE
Rev Esp Quimioter; 1999 Dec; 12(4):332-9. PubMed ID: 10855012
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Diabetic foot infections. Bacteriology and activity of 10 oral antimicrobial agents against bacteria isolated from consecutive cases.
Goldstein EJ; Citron DM; Nesbit CA
Diabetes Care; 1996 Jun; 19(6):638-41. PubMed ID: 8725864
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Microflora in the trophic ulcers of the foot in leprosy.
Chatterjee BD; Chakraborti CK; Chaudhuri S
J Trop Med Hyg; 1985 Oct; 88(5):333-6. PubMed ID: 3836311
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. [Etiological structure and antibiotic sensitivity of the causative agents of puerperal endometritis].
Voropaeva SD; Sokolova IE; Emel'ianova AI
Antibiot Med Biotekhnol; 1987 Jun; 32(6):449-53. PubMed ID: 3631938
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
