Statements in which the resource exists.
SubjectPredicateObjectContext
pubmed-article:7930542rdf:typepubmed:Citationlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7930542lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0008972lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:7930542lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0009369lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:7930542lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0034656lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:7930542lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0017436lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:7930542lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0025872lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:7930542lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0677582lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:7930542lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0075629lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:7930542lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1707455lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:7930542lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0445202lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:7930542lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0355642lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:7930542lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C2930041lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:7930542lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0439608lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:7930542pubmed:issue2lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7930542pubmed:dateCreated1994-11-16lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7930542pubmed:abstractTextA randomized control clinical study was conducted to compare the effectiveness of prophylactic ampicillin/sulbactam in preventing wound infection after elective colorectal surgery with a combination of gentamicin and metronidazole. Over a 2-year period, 143 patients were recruited, but 15 patients were subsequently excluded due to the use of additional antibiotics for the treatment of pulmonary or urinary infection or early postoperative death without wound infection. Of the 128 evaluable patients, six of the 63 patients (9.5%) in the ampicillin/sulbactam group and seven of the 65 patients (10.7%) in the gentamicin and metronidazole group developed wound infection. We conclude that prophylactic ampicillin/sulbactam is effective in reducing the risk of wound infection following colorectal surgery.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7930542pubmed:languageenglld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7930542pubmed:journalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7930542pubmed:citationSubsetIMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7930542pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7930542pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7930542pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7930542pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7930542pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7930542pubmed:statusMEDLINElld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7930542pubmed:monthJunlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7930542pubmed:issn0195-6701lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7930542pubmed:authorpubmed-author:LeeF CFClld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7930542pubmed:authorpubmed-author:ChiuK MKMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7930542pubmed:authorpubmed-author:YipA WAWlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7930542pubmed:authorpubmed-author:AhChongKKlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7930542pubmed:issnTypePrintlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7930542pubmed:volume27lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7930542pubmed:ownerNLMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7930542pubmed:authorsCompleteYlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7930542pubmed:pagination149-54lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7930542pubmed:dateRevised2006-11-15lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7930542pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:7930542-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7930542pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:7930542-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7930542pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:7930542-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7930542pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:7930542-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7930542pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:7930542-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7930542pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:7930542-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7930542pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:7930542-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7930542pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:7930542-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7930542pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:7930542-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7930542pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:7930542-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7930542pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:7930542-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7930542pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:7930542-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7930542pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:7930542-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7930542pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:7930542-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7930542pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:7930542-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7930542pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:7930542-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7930542pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:7930542-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7930542pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:7930542-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7930542pubmed:year1994lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7930542pubmed:articleTitleComparison of prophylactic ampicillin/sulbactam with gentamicin and metronidazole in elective colorectal surgery: a randomized clinical study.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7930542pubmed:affiliationSurgical B Unit, Kwong Wah Hospital, Kowloon, Hong Kong.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7930542pubmed:publicationTypeJournal Articlelld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7930542pubmed:publicationTypeClinical Triallld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7930542pubmed:publicationTypeComparative Studylld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7930542pubmed:publicationTypeRandomized Controlled Triallld:pubmed