Treatment of acute pyelonephritis in children: Conclusions should have been more cautious

doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7445.957

From trainee to consultant, BMJ Group offers doctors around the world tailored information, special events, learning resources and recruitment services at every step along their career path.

... by doctors, for doctors, for patients
We are open for entries!

Online learning

BMJ Learning

High-quality CME / CPD for doctors and other healthcare professionals. BMJ Learning features hundreds of accredited, peer-reviewed learning modules in text, video, and audio formats. Find out more

Courses and Qualifications

BMJ Masterclasses

BMJ Masterclasses, led by experts, help clinicians to use the latest evidence and recent guidelines in practice and meet their CPD/CME requirements. Find out more

Exam Preparation

The leading provider of online exam preparation, helping over 167,000 healthcare professionals to pass their exams. Find out more

onExamination

Search all BMJ comment articles:

From

Limit by

Access to the full text of this article requires a subscription or payment. Please log in or subscribe below.

Juan M Lozano, professor of paediatrics and clinical epidemiology (jmlozano@javeriana.edu.co)

School of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana. Carrera 7 No 40-62, Bogotá, Colombia

EDITOR—The evidence supporting one of Craig and Hodson's major conclusions, that oral and intravenous antibiotics are equally safe and effective for acute pyelonephritis in children, has important caveats.1

None of the two trials (one published, one ongoing) comparing oral and parenteral antibiotics have found significant differences in …