These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
223 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8197037)
21. Serum bactericidal activity against aerobes and anaerobes of volunteers receiving cefoxitin or cefotetan. Cruciani M; Navarra A; Bono L; Concia E Chemioterapia; 1988 Aug; 7(4):261-3. PubMed ID: 3180306 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. An update on the in vitro activity of ceftizoxime and other cephalosporin/cephamycin antimicrobial agents against clinically significant anaerobic bacteria. Aldridge KE Clin Ther; 1990; 12 Suppl C():3-12. PubMed ID: 2202509 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Serum and blister fluid pharmacokinetics and bactericidal activities of ampicillin-sulbactam, cefotetan, cefoxitin, ceftizoxime, and ticarcillin-clavulanate. Jaresko GS; Barriere SL; Johnson BL Antimicrob Agents Chemother; 1992 Oct; 36(10):2233-8. PubMed ID: 1444304 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Ampicillin and ampicillin-sulbactam dilution tests with mixed cultures of Bacteroides fragilis, Escherichia coli and Enterococcus. Heilmann F Infection; 1993; 21(3):187-90. PubMed ID: 8365818 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. In vitro activity of ampicillin plus sulbactam against anaerobes compared to ampicillin and cefoxitin. Heizmann W; Heilmann F; Werner H Infection; 1987; 15(5):370-4. PubMed ID: 3692611 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Therapeutic interchange of ampicillin-sulbactam for cefoxitin. Lawrenz CA; Cole P; Theodorou A; Cook RL; Bermann L Am J Hosp Pharm; 1991 Oct; 48(10):2150-4. PubMed ID: 1781470 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. 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]
28. 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]
29. Bactericidal activity of ceftizoxime, cefotetan, and clindamycin against cefoxitin-resistant strains of the Bacteroides fragilis group. Aldridge KE; Stratton CW J Antimicrob Chemother; 1991 Nov; 28(5):701-5. PubMed ID: 1778873 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Efficacy of sulbactam in an in vitro model of mixed aerobic/anaerobic infections. Heizmann WR; Heilmann F; Egeler B; Werner H Infection; 1990; 18(2):117-21. PubMed ID: 2332245 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Comparison of the bactericidal activity of clindamycin and metronidazole against cefoxitin-susceptible and cefoxitin-resistant isolates of the Bacteroides fragilis group. Stratton CW; Weeks LS; Aldridge KE Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis; 1991; 14(5):377-82. PubMed ID: 1797454 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. A comparison of ampicillin/sulbactam and cefoxitin in the treatment of bacterial skin and skin-structure infections. Weigelt JA Adv Ther; 1994; 11(4):183-91. PubMed ID: 10150262 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Inducible metronidazole resistance in nim-positive and nim-negative bacteroides fragilis group strains after several passages metronidazole containing columbia agar plates. Schaumann R; Petzold S; Fille M; Rodloff AC Infection; 2005 Oct; 33(5-6):368-72. PubMed ID: 16258869 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. A multicenter international study on the activity of sulbactam/ampicillin, ampicillin, and cefoxitin against anaerobic bacteria and introduction of a new model of susceptibility testing in mixed infections. Heizmann WR; Heilmann F; Werner H Suppl Int J Gynecol Obstet; 1989; 2():7-12; discussion 47-8. PubMed ID: 2679683 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Comparison of the post-antibiotic effect (PAE) induced by ceftizoxime, ceftriaxone, cefoxitin, ampicillin-sulbactam, and ticarcillin-clavulanate against selected isolates of Bacteroides fragilis and B. thetaiotaomicron. Aldridge KE Anaerobe; 2002 Dec; 8(6):295-9. PubMed ID: 16887672 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Comparison of the inoculum effect of cefoxitin and other cephalosporins and of beta-lactamase inhibitors and their penicillin-derived components on the Bacteroides fragilis group. Goldstein EJ; Citron DM; Cherubin CE Antimicrob Agents Chemother; 1991 Sep; 35(9):1868-74. PubMed ID: 1952860 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Antibiotic sensitivity of the Bacteroides fragilis group in Denmark. Danish Study Group. Bremmelgaard A; Jansen JE; Justesen T; Gottschau A APMIS; 1993 Sep; 101(9):727-31. PubMed ID: 8240792 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Single-agent therapy for acute pelvic inflammatory disease: sulbactam/ampicillin versus cefoxitin. Hemsell DL; Bawdon RE; Hemsell PG; Nobles BJ; Heard MC J Int Med Res; 1990; 18 Suppl 4():85D-89D. PubMed ID: 2282973 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Pathogenicity of capsulate and non-capsulate members of Bacteroides fragilis and B. melaninogenicus groups in mixed infection with Escherichia coli and Streptococcus pyogenes. Brook I J Med Microbiol; 1988 Nov; 27(3):191-8. PubMed ID: 2903934 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]