No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Antimicrobial Prophylaxis of Cesarean Section
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 June 2016
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
- Type
- Editorial
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America
References
1.Frank, E. Prophylaxis of cesarean sections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1990;11:228.Google Scholar
2.Dougherty, SH, Williams, VS. Prophylaxis for cesarean section: where to turn? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1990;11:9.Google Scholar
4.Moro, M, Andrews, M. Prophylactic antibiotics in cesarean section. Obstet Gynecol. 1974;44:668–692.Google Scholar
5.Gall, SA. The efficacy of prophylactic antibiotics in cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1979;134:506–511.Google Scholar
6.Silver, HG, Forward, KR, Livingstone, RA. Multicenter comparison of cefoxitin versus cefazolin for prevention of infectious morbidity after nonelective cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1983;145:158–163.Google Scholar
7.Gonik, B. Single- versus three-dose cefotaxime prophylaxis for cesarean section. Obstet Gynecol. 1985;65:189–193.Google Scholar
8.McGregor, JA, French, JL, Makowski, E. Single-dose cefotetan versus multi-dose cefoxitin for prophylaxis in cesarean section in high-risk patients. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1986;154-955–960.Google Scholar
9.Galask, RP, Weiner, C, Petzold, CR. Comparison of single-dose cefmet-azole and cefotetan prophylaxis in women undergoing primary cesarean section. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1989;23(suppl D):105–108.Google Scholar
10.Griffith, DL, Novak, E, Greenwald, CE, Metzler, CM, Paxton, LM. Clinical experience with cefmetazole sodium in the United States: an overview. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1989;23(suppl D):21–33.Google Scholar
11.Jones, RN, Slepack, JM, Wojeski, WVCefotaxime single-dose surgical prophylaxis in a prepaid group practice: comparisons with other cephalosporins and ticarcillin/clavulanic acid. Drugs. 1988;35(suppl 2):116–123.Google Scholar
12.Jones, RN. Review of the in-vitro spectrum and characteristics of cefmetazole (CS-1170), a cephamycin antimicrobial agent. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1989;23(suppl D):1–12.Google Scholar
13.Ohm-Smith, MF, Sweet, RL. In vitro activity of cefmetazole, cefotetan, amoxacillin-clavulanic acid, and other antimicrobial agents against anaerobic bacteria from endometrial cultures of women with pelvic infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1989;31:1434–1437.Google Scholar
14.Jones, RN. Cefotetan: a review of the microbiologic properties and antimicrobial spectrum. Am J Surg. 1988a;155:16–23.Google Scholar
15.Jones, RN. Cefmetazole(CS-1170), a “new” cephamycin with a decade of clinical experience. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1989;12:367–379.Google Scholar
16.Barry, AL, Jones, RN. Cross-susceptibility between cefotetan and cefoxitin: absence ofcross-resistance. J Clin Microbiol. 1987;25:1570–1571.Google Scholar
17.Jones, RN, Thornsberry, C. Cefotaxime (HR756): a review of the in vitro antimicrobial properities and spectrum of activity. Rev Infect Dis. 1982;4(suppl):S300–S315.Google Scholar
18.Jones, RN, Barry, AL. Optimal dilution susceptibility testing conditions, recommendations for MIC interpretation and orality control guidelines for the ampicillin/sulbactam combination. J Clin Microbiol. 1987:25:1920–1925.Google Scholar
You have
Access