SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2005
Fluoroquinolones for treating typhoid and paratyphoid fever (enteric fever).
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review of the global epidemiology, clinical and laboratory profile of enteric fever.Journal of global health · 2015Pooled it
- Gatifloxacin versus chloramphenicol for uncomplicated enteric fever: an open-label, randomised, controlled trial.The Lancet. Infectious diseases · 2011Trial
- Trial
- An open randomized comparison of gatifloxacin versus cefixime for the treatment of uncomplicated enteric fever.PloS one · 2007Trial
- The expanding spectrum of disease due to salmonella: an international perspective.Current infectious disease reports · 2009Article
- Current concepts in the diagnosis and treatment of typhoid fever.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2006Review
- 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 · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.