This Article  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Michael Callaham, MD
Highland General Hospital Oakland, Calif

JAMA. 1981;246(8):834.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

In Reply.—

I was most interested to read the letter and report of a study by Drs Elenbaas, McNabney, and Robinson. Their study of prophylactic oxacillin in dog bite wounds sounds well designed and well controlled, and I cannot argue with their conclusions. At the time of writing my discussion of the management of dog bite injuries, I did not have the results of this study available to me. However, I would agree with the authors that the differences are simply those of interpretation of the same data.

Regarding my original study in the Annals of Emergency Medicine, it is true that several observers provided follow-up evaluation, thus lessening uniformity of evaluation and management. High-risk wounds were indeed equally distributed between treated and controlled patients, as were other variables such as patient age and wound location. Although some clinically infected wounds were not recultured, these amounted to less than 10%. . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?