Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12917916›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2003

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, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Treatment of pulmonary exacerbations in cystic fibrosis.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2013
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

A SmythDepartment of Paediatrics, Nottingham City Hospital, Hucknall Road, Nottingham, UK, NG5 1PB.
S Walters

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStaphylococcus aureus causes pulmonary infection in young children with cystic fibrosis (CF). Prophylactic antibiotics are widely prescribed in the hope of preventing infection with Staphylococcus aureus and lung damage. Antibiotics also have adverse effects and long-term use might lead to chronic infection with organisms like Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

objectivesTo assess the effect of continuous oral antibiotic prophylaxis compared to no prophylaxis in people with CF, we tested these hypotheses. Prophylaxis: (1) improves clinical status, lung function and survival; (2) causes adverse effects (eg diarrhoea, skin rash, candidiasis); (3) leads to fewer isolates of common pathogens from respiratory secretions; (4) leads to the emergence of antibiotic resistance and the colonisation of the respiratory tract with organisms, e.g. Pseudomonas aeruginosa. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group trials register, comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, handsearching relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. Companies manufacturing anti-staphylococcal antibiotics were approached for unpublished data. Most recent search of the Group's register: March 2003. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials of continuous oral prophylactic antibiotics (given for at least one year) compared to intermittent antibiotic therapy given "as required," in people with CF of any disease severity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The reviewers assessed trials for eligibility and methodological quality and extracted data. MAIN

resultsFour studies, totalling 303 participants (139 boys) aged zero to seven years on enrollment, were included. Fewer children receiving anti-staphylococcal antibiotic prophylaxis had one or more isolates of Staphylococcus aureus. There was no significant difference between groups in infant or conventional lung function tests. We found no significant effect on nutrition, hospital admissions, additional courses of antibiotics or adverse effects. There is no significant difference in the number of isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa between groups, though there was a trend towards a lower cumulative isolation rate of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in the prophylaxis group, at two and three years and a trend towards a higher rate from four to six years. However, as the duration of the studies reviewed has been of six years or less, conclusions cannot be drawn about the long-term effects of prophylaxis. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsAnti-staphylococcal antibiotic prophylaxis leads to fewer children having isolates of Staphylococcus aureus, when commenced early in infancy and continued up to six years of age. The clinical importance of this finding is uncertain. Further research may establish whether the trend towards more children with CF with Pseudomonas aeruginosa, after four to six years of prophylaxis, is a chance finding. Future work should explore whether choice of prophylactic antibiotic or duration of treatment might influence infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

Indexed as

Antibiotic ProphylaxisAdultChildCystic FibrosisHumansInfantRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRespiratory Tract InfectionsStaphylococcal Infections

Identifiers

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.