Interventions for cellulitis and erysipelas
Citation: Kilburn S., Featherstone P., Higgins B., et al. Interventions for cellulitis and erysipelas. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 1. Art. No: CD004299.
Limited evidence shows that macrolide and streptogramin are slightly better than penicillin for eliminating or reducing symptoms at the end of treatment for cellulitis, as well as indicating that oral antibiotics can be more effective than intravenous antibiotics.
Cellulitis and erysipelas are considered manifestations of the same condition, a skin infection associated with severe pain and systemic symptoms. This review uses the term ‘cellulitis’ to describe both conditions. The infection is usually treated with antibiotics; however, corticosteroids and physical treatments have also been used. This review assesses the efficacy and safety of interventions for non‐surgically acquired cellulitis. Researchers selected randomised controlled trials comparing two or more different interventions for cellulitis. These included 25 studies with a total of 2488 participants, however no two trials investigated the same antibiotics. There was also no standard treatment regime used as a comparison. Oral antibiotics appeared to be more effective than antibiotics given into a vein for moderate and severe cellulitis. There is limited evidence that macrolide and streptogramin are slightly better than penicillin for reducing symptoms at the end of treatment for cellulitis. No firm conclusions can be drawn about which treatment is most effective because of insufficient data.
Disclaimer: This summary has been written by staff and volunteers of Evidence Aid in order to make the content of the original document accessible to decision makers who are searching for the available evidence on the health of refugees and asylum seekers but may not have the time, initially, to read the original report in full. This summary is not intended as a substitute for the medical advice of physicians, other health workers, professional associations, guideline developers, or national governments and international agencies. If readers of this summary think that the evidence that is presented within it is relevant to their decision-making they should refer to the content and details of the original article, and the advice and guidelines offered by other sources of expertise, before making decisions. Evidence Aid cannot be held responsible for any decisions made about the health of refugees and asylum seekers on the basis of this summary alone.
If you have found this summary helpful, please consider making a donation. If everyone who looked at our COVID-19 resources gave us just £2 per month, it would fund Evidence Aid’s life-saving work.