Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17443506›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2007

Prolonged antibiotics for purulent bronchiectasis in children and adults.

D J Evans, A I Bara, M Greenstone

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02102152 (Efficacy & Tolerability of Tobramycin Podhaler in Bronchiectasis Patients With Chronic Pseudomonas Aeruginosa Infection), which is not on this map. Cited by 19 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 4 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.

NCT02102152 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2014, after this paper: background citation

Efficacy & Tolerability of Tobramycin Podhaler in Bronchiectasis Patients With Chronic Pseudomonas Aeruginosa Infection

TypeinterventionalSponsorRabin Medical CenterRan2014 to 2016Enrolled40ConditionsBronchiectasis With Chronic Infection With Pseudomonas AeruginosaArmsTobramycin
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia.Clinics in chest medicine · 2016
    Review
  10. Review
  11. The Korean Cough Guideline: Recommendation and Summary Statement.Tuberculosis and respiratory diseases · 2016
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Primary ciliary dyskinesia.Seminars in respiratory and critical care medicine · 2015
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Bronchiectasis.Tuberculosis and respiratory diseases · 2012
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Bronchiectasis, part 2: Management.The Journal of respiratory diseases · 2008
    Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

D J EvansHemel Hempstead Hospital, Thoracic Medicine, Hillfield Road, Hemel Hempstead, Herts, UK HP2 4AD. david.evans@whht.nhs.uk
A I Bara
M Greenstone
Castle Hill Hospital · GBHemel Hempstead Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe vicious cycle hypothesis for bronchiectasis predicts that bacterial colonisation of the respiratory tract perpetuates inflammatory change. This damages the mucociliary escalator preventing bacterial clearance and allowing the persistence of pro-inflammatory mediators. Conventional treatment with physiotherapy and intermittent antibiotics are felt to improve the condition of bronchiectasis patients although there are no conclusive data showing that these interventions influence the natural history of the condition. Various strategies have been tried to interrupt this cycle of infection and inflammation and one of these is to prolong antibiotic treatment in the hope of allowing the airway mucosa to heal.

objectivesThis systematic review brings together the evidence and where possible presents a meta-analysis of the data available to answer the question 'Does treatment with prolonged courses of antibiotics influence the outcome in purulent bronchiectasis?' SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Airways Group trials register and reference lists of identified articles were searched. Searches were current as of January 2007. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials looking at the use of prolonged antibiotic therapy in the treatment of bronchiectasis compared with either placebo or usual care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trial quality was assessed and data extraction was carried out by the reviewers independently. Study authors were contacted for missing information. MAIN

resultsNine trials met the inclusion criteria, recruiting a total of 378 participants. Antibiotics were given for between 4 weeks and one year. Only limited meta-analysis was possible due to the diversity of outcomes in the trials. Response rates showed significant effects in favour of prolonged antibiotic treatment (Peto OR (95% CI), 3.37 (1.60 to 7.09)). Conversely for exacerbation rates there was no significant difference between prolonged antibiotics and placebo (Peto OR (95% CI), 0.96 (0.27 to 3.46)). For withdrawals there was no significant difference between treatment and placebo management (Peto OR (95% CI), 1.06 (0.42 to 2.65)). Data for lung function showed no significant benefit in favour of antibiotic treatment (% predicted FEV1 mean difference -1.05 % (95% CI -6.93 to 4.83)). AUTHORS'

conclusionsThe evidence available shows a small benefit for the use of prolonged antibiotics in the treatment of bronchiectasis. This review is limited by the diversity of the trials. Further randomised controlled trials with adequate power and standardised end points are required.

Indexed as

AdultAnti-Bacterial AgentsBronchiectasisChildHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSputumSuppurationTime FactorsAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID17443506
OpenAlexW1705408830

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.