Trial reportEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology1990
Randomised double-blind study of norfloxacin and cefadroxil in the treatment of acute pyelonephritis.
Trial report in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 1990. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 59 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pyelonephritis (acute) in non-pregnant women.BMJ clinical evidence · 2011Pooled it
- Oral antibiotic therapy for acute pyelonephritis: a methodologic review of the literature.Journal of general internal medicinePooled it
- Trial
- Treatment duration of febrile urinary tract infection: a pragmatic randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled non-inferiority trial in men and women.BMC medicine · 2017Trial
- Treatment duration of febrile urinary tract infection (FUTIRST trial): a randomized placebo-controlled multicenter trial comparing short (7 days) antibiotic treatment with conventional treatment (14 days).BMC infectious diseases · 2009Trial
- Ceftibuten versus trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for oral treatment of febrile urinary tract infection in children.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2009Trial
- Safety and efficacy of lomefloxacin versus norfloxacin in the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 1993Trial
- The efficacy of pivmecillinam in oral step-down treatment in hospitalised patients with E. coli bacteremic urinary tract infection; a single-arm, uncontrolled treatment study.BMC infectious diseases · 2022Article
- Oral β-Lactam Antibiotics vs Fluoroquinolones or Trimethoprim-Sulfamethoxazole for Definitive Treatment of Enterobacterales Bacteremia From a Urine Source.JAMA network open · 2020Article
- Top Questions in Uncomplicated, Non-Open forum infectious diseases · 2018Article
- Treatment duration of febrile urinary tract infections.Current infectious disease reports · 2011Article
- The quinolones and renal infection.Drugs · 1999Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In a coordinated, double-blind multi-centre trial, adults with symptoms of acute pyelonephritis were randomly assigned to receive a two-week course of oral treatment with either 400 mg norfloxacin twice daily or 1 g cefadroxil twice daily. Of 197 patients enrolled in the study, 140 could be evaluated for drug efficacy and 193 for drug safety. Norfloxacin gave a significantly higher bacteriological cure rate than cefadroxil, both at 3 to 10 days (98% versus 65%; p less than 0.0001; 95% confidence interval (CI) for difference in proportions 21-46%) and up to eight weeks (87% versus 48%; p less than 0.0001; 95% CI 25-54%) after cessation of treatment. The differences between the two regimens were most pronounced in men and in patients with complicating factors such as diabetes mellitus and urinary tract abnormalities. The clinical response during treatment did not differ between the two groups, but symptomatic recurrences at follow-up were more common in the cefadroxil group (28% versus 3%; p less than 0.0001; 95% CI 14-36%). Adverse events were more often reported by patients receiving cefadroxil (39% versus 22%; p = 0.011; 95% CI 4-30%) and consisted mainly of gastrointestinal disturbances and vulvo-vaginitis. In terms of bacteriological and clinical efficacy and safety, a two-week course of norfloxacin was superior to a two-week course of cefadroxil for oral treatment of community-acquired acute pyelonephritis.
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.