Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15846718›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2005

Fluoroquinolones for treating typhoid and paratyphoid fever (enteric fever).

D Thaver, A K Zaidi, J Critchley, S A Madni, Z A Bhutta

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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.

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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Antimicrobial resistance among Salmonella and Shigella isolates in five Canadian provinces (1997 to 2000).The Canadian journal of infectious diseases & medical microbiology = Journal canadien des maladies infectieuses et de la microbiologie medicale · 2006
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

D Thaver
A K Zaidi
J Critchley
S A Madni
Z A Bhutta
Aga Khan University Hospital Nairobi · KENewcastle University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFluoroquinolones are recommended as first-line therapy for typhoid and paratyphoid fever, but how they compare with other cheaper antibiotics and different fluoroquinolones is unclear.

objectivesTo evaluate fluoroquinolone antibiotics for treating enteric fever in children and adults compared with other antibiotics, different fluoroquinolones, and different treatment durations of the same fluoroquinolone. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register (August 2004), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2004), MEDLINE (1966 to August 2004), EMBASE (1974 to August 2004), LILACS (1982 to August 2004), conference proceedings, reference lists, and contacted researchers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials of fluoroquinolones in people with blood or bone marrow culture-confirmed enteric fever. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality of trials and extracted data. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) for dichotomous data with 95% confidence intervals. We analysed norfloxacin separately. MAIN

resultsThirty-three trials met the inclusion criteria; 22 had unclear allocation concealment, and 29 were not blinded. Three trials exclusively included children, and two studied outpatients. The main analysis examined clinical failure, microbiological failure, and relapse. Compared with chloramphenicol, fluoroquinolones were not statistically significantly different for clinical (544 participants) or microbiological failure (378 participants) in adults; they reduced clinically diagnosed relapse in adults (OR 0.14, 0.04 to 0.50; 467 participants, 6 trials), but this was not statistically significant in participants with blood culture-confirmed relapse (121 participants, 2 trials). Compared with co-trimoxazole, we detected no statistically significant difference (82 participants, 2 trials). Among adults, fluoroquinolones reduced clinical failure compared with ceftriaxone (OR 0.08, 0.01 to 0.45; 120 participants, 3 trials), but showed no difference for microbiological failure or relapse. We detected no statistically significant difference between fluoroquinolones and cefixime (80 participants, 1 trial) or azithromycin (152 participants, 2 trials). In trials of hospitalized children, fluoroquinolones were not statistically significantly different from ceftriaxone (60 participants, 1 trial, involving norfloxacin) or cefixime (82 participants, 1 trial). Norfloxacin had more clinical failures than other fluoroquinolones (417 participants, 5 trials). Trials comparing different durations of fluoroquinolone treatment showed no statistically significant differences (693 participants, 8 trials). AUTHORS'

conclusionsMany trials were small, and methodological quality varied widely. Although enteric fever most commonly affects children, trials in this group were particularly sparse. Insufficient data in all comparisons preclude any firm conclusions to be made regarding superiority of fluoroquinolones over first-line antibiotics in children and adults.

Indexed as

AdultAnti-Infective AgentsChildFluoroquinolonesHumansNorfloxacinParatyphoid FeverRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeTyphoid FeverAnti-Infective AgentsFluoroquinolonesNorfloxacin

Identifiers

PMID15846718
OpenAlexW4254929206

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.