Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12137650›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2002

Penicillin for secondary prevention of rheumatic fever.

J Manyemba, B M Mayosi

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
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. Cited by 107 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
107citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

107 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 228 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Global heart · 2026
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2025
    Article
  19. Acute rheumatic fever presenting as fulminant myocarditis.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2024
    Article
  20. Article

47 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

J ManyembaClinical Age Research Unit, Guy's, King's & St Thomas' School of Medicine, King's College Hospital, London, UK, SE5 9PJ. juliet.manyemba@kcl.ac.uk
B M Mayosi
Groote Schuur Hospital · ZAKing's College Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeople with a history of rheumatic fever are at high risk of recurrent attacks of rheumatic fever and developing rheumatic heart disease following a streptococcal throat infection. Giving penicillin to these people can prevent recurrent attacks of rheumatic fever and subsequent rheumatic heart disease. However, there is no agreement on the most effective method of giving penicillin.

objectivesTo assess the effects of penicillin compared to placebo and the effects of different penicillin regimens and formulations for preventing streptococcal infection and rheumatic fever recurrence. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Controlled Trials Register (Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2001), MEDLINE (1997 to July 2000), EMBASE (1998 to July 2000), reference lists of articles and we contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised studies comparing (i) penicillin with control, (ii) oral with intramuscular penicillin (iii) 2- or 3-weekly with 4-weekly intramuscular penicillin in patients with previous rheumatic fever. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. MAIN

resultsNine studies were included (n=3008). Data were not pooled because of heterogeneity. Overall, the methodological quality of included studies was poor. Three trials (n= 1301) compared penicillin with control. Only one of three studies showed that penicillin reduced rheumatic fever recurrence (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.92) and streptococcal throat infection (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.97). Four trials (n=1098) compared intramuscular with oral penicillin and all showed that intramuscular penicillin reduced rheumatic fever recurrence and streptococcal throat infections compared to oral penicillin. One trial (n= 360) compared 2-weekly with 4-weekly intramuscular penicillin. Penicillin given every two-weeks was better at reducing rheumatic fever recurrence (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.83) and streptococcal throat infections (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.85). One trial (n= 249) showed 3-weekly intramuscular penicillin injections reduced streptococcal throat infections (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.92) compared to 4-weekly intramuscular penicillin. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsIntramuscular penicillin seemed to be more effective than oral penicillin in preventing rheumatic fever recurrence and streptococcal throat infections. Two-weekly or 3-weekly injections appeared to be more effective than 4-weekly injections. However, the evidence is based on poor quality of trials.

Indexed as

Administration, OralDrug Administration ScheduleHumansInjections, IntramuscularPenicillinsRecurrenceRheumatic FeverStreptococcal InfectionsPenicillins

Identifiers

PMID12137650
PMCPMC7017848
OpenAlexW1851830767

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.