Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

[Clinical evaluation of the TMS-19-Q.GC tablet in acute tonsillitis. A comparative double blind study with josamycin].

Authors: S, Baba; H, Kinoshita; Y, Mori; B, Sanbe; R, Ueda; S, Kawamura; R, Sugita; +3 Authors

[Clinical evaluation of the TMS-19-Q.GC tablet in acute tonsillitis. A comparative double blind study with josamycin].

Abstract

In order to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of TMS-19-Q.GC tablet (TMS) with josamycin tablet (JM) in acute tonsillitis, the double blind trial was carried out with the daily dosage of 200 mg X 3 in TMS and 400 mg X 3 in JM. Number of cases evaluated for clinical efficacy were 154 cases (73 treated with TMS and 81 treated with JM). The effective rating of TMS and JM were 89.0% and 88.9% judged by doctors in charge, and 82.2% and 85.2% judged by committee respectively. Bacteriological effects were satisfactory to yield the eradication rates of 93.8% in TMS and 94.7% in JM. Number of cases evaluated for safety were 199 cases (101 treated with TMS and 98 treated with JM). The incidence of side effect was 4.0% (4/101) in TMS and 5.1% (5/98) in JM and most of them were mild gastro-intestinal disorders. Number of cases evaluated for utility were 156 cases (74 treated with TMS and 82 treated with JM). The usefulness rates were 85.1% in TMS and 86.6% in JM. There was no significant difference between TMS and JM, in clinical effect, bacteriological effect, safety and utility. From these results, daily 600 mg dosage of TMS was as useful as daily 1,200 mg dosage of JM in the treatment for acute tonsillitis.

Keywords

Adult, Male, Clinical Trials as Topic, Adolescent, Middle Aged, Leucomycins, Tonsillitis, Double-Blind Method, Acute Disease, Humans, Female, Miocamycin, Aged, Tablets

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!