Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10796836›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2000

Prophylactic antibiotics for cystic fibrosis.

A Smyth, S Walters

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 101 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

A SmythDepartment of Paediatrics, Nottingham City Hospital, Hucknall Road, Nottingham, UK, NG5 1PB. DrAlanSmyth@compuserve.com
S Walters
Nottingham City Hospital · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients with cystic fibrosis are sometimes prescribed antibiotics to take continuously on a prophylactic (preventative) basis. This approach is most commonly used in infants where the objective is to reduce pulmonary infection with Staphylococcus aureus and prevent lung damage. This approach may also be used in older patients. This review evaluates the evidence for the effectiveness of this approach and considers potential adverse effects.

objectivesTo compare continuous oral antibiotic prophylaxis with no prophylaxis (short courses of oral antibiotics given as clinically indicated) in patients with cystic fibrosis. This review considers both the effectiveness of prophylaxis (bacteria isolated from the respiratory tract, requirement for additional antibiotic treatment, lung function, survival) and the adverse effects. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group clinical trials register was used. This comprises references identified from a comprehensive search of electronic databases, as well as hand searching relevant journals and conference abstracts. Companies manufacturing anti-staphylococcal antibiotics were also approached for unpublished data. Date of the most recent search of the Group's specialised register: November 1999. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised or pseudo-randomised trials where continuous oral prophylactic antibiotics, given for a period of at least one year, were compared to intermittent antibiotic therapy given "as required." Cystic fibrosis patients of any disease severity were considered. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trials were assessed for eligibility, methodological quality and data extraction by two reviewers (AS & SW). The following outcomes were assessed: lung function; nutrition (weight standard deviation score); survival; requirement for additional antibiotic treatment; isolates of pathogens from the respiratory tract; occurrence of adverse reactions to prophylactic antibiotics. MAIN

resultsOnly two studies, totalling 66 patients (over half of whom were infants), were suitable for inclusion in the review. A reduced prevalence of Staphylococcus aureus in the respiratory secretions was seen in children receiving anti-staphylococcal antibiotic prophylaxis, although no effect was seen on other common pathogens. This is associated with a reduced requirement for additional courses of oral antibiotics and fewer hospital admissions in the first two years of life in patients receiving prophylaxis. No effect on infant lung function has been shown after one year of prophylactic treatment. Data are not available on adverse effects of the interventions. As the duration of the studies reviewed has been of two years or less, conclusions cannot be drawn about the long term effects of prophylaxis on acquisition of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and survival. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsAnti-staphylococcal antibiotic prophylaxis may be of benefit when commenced early in infancy and continued up to two years of age. There is insufficient evidence from this review to say whether use in older children, or adults, or for periods of over two year is beneficial.

Indexed as

Antibiotic ProphylaxisAdultChildCystic FibrosisHumansInfantRespiratory Tract Infections

Identifiers

PMID10796836
OpenAlexW2396162782

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.