Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11869610›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2002

Antibiotics for trachoma.

D Mabey, N Fraser-Hurt

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00286026 (Azithromycin in Control of Trachoma II), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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.

NCT00286026 phase4withdrawnnot on this mapstarted 2005, after this paper: background citation

Azithromycin in Control of Trachoma II

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of California, San FranciscoRan2005 to 2009Enrolled0ConditionsTrachomaArmsAzithromycin
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Antibiotics for trachoma.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Trachoma, antibiotics and randomised controlled trials.The British journal of ophthalmology · 2006
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

D MabeySouth Wing Eye Department, St Thomas' Hospital, Lambeth Palace Road, London, UK, SE1 7EH. Denise.Mabey@mabeys.demon.co.uk
N Fraser-Hurt
Centre for Sight · INRoyal Victoria Infirmary · GBSt Thomas' Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTrachoma is the world's leading cause of preventable blindness. In 1997 the World Health Organization launched an initiative on trachoma control based on the 'SAFE' strategy (surgery, antibiotics, facial cleanliness and environmental improvement).

objectivesThe aim of this review is to assess the evidence supporting the antibiotic arm of the SAFE strategy by assessing the effects of antibiotics on both active trachoma (primary objective) and on Chlamydia trachomatis infection of the conjunctiva (secondary objective). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register - CENTRAL/CCTR, which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group specialised register (Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2001), MEDLINE (1966 to August 2001), and EMBASE (1980 to September 2001). We used the Science Citation Index to look for articles that cited the included studies. We searched the reference lists of identified articles and we contacted authors and experts for details of further relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomised trials that satisfied either of two criteria: (a) trials in which topical or oral administration of an antibiotic was compared to placebo or no treatment in people with trachoma, (b) trials in which a topical antibiotic was compared with an oral antibiotic in people with trachoma. A subdivision of particular interest was of trials in which topical tetracycline/chlortetracycline was compared with oral azithromycin, as these are the two World Health Organization recommended treatments. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted investigators for missing data. MAIN

resultsWe found 15 studies that randomised a total of 8678 participants. For both outcomes (active trachoma and laboratory evidence of infection) the results of the chi-square tests suggested that there was significant statistical heterogeneity among the trials. There was also marked clinical heterogeneity. No summary statistics were calculated and we therefore present a narrative summary of the results. For the comparisons of oral or topical antibiotic against placebo/no treatment, the data are consistent with there being no effect of antibiotics but are suggestive of a lowering of the point prevalence of relative risk of both active disease and laboratory evidence of infection at three and 12 months after treatment. For the comparison of oral against topical antibiotics the results suggest that oral treatment is neither more nor less effective than topical treatment. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsThere is some evidence that antibiotics reduce active trachoma but results are not consistent and cannot be pooled.

Indexed as

Chlamydia trachomatisAnti-Bacterial AgentsHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTrachomaAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID11869610
OpenAlexW1697039790

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.