Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22696367›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2012

Azithromycin versus penicillin G benzathine for early syphilis.

Zheng Gang Bai, Baoxi Wang, Kehu Yang, Jin Hui Tian, Bin Ma, Yali Liu, Lei Jiang, Qiong Yan Gai, Xiaodong He, Youping Li

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Antibiotics for syphilis diagnosed during pregnancy.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2001
    Pooled it
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Zheng Gang BaiEvidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou City, China.
Baoxi Wang
Kehu Yang
Jin Hui Tian
Bin Ma
Yali Liu
Lei Jiang
Qiong Yan Gai
Xiaodong He
Youping Li
Lanzhou University · CNChinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CNSichuan University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSyphilis is a complex systemic disease caused by a spirochete, Treponema pallidum. The World Health Organization estimates that at least 12 million people worldwide are currently infected with syphilis. In this review we compared two current standards of treatment for early syphilis, benzathine benzylpenicillin (penicillin G) and azithromycin.

objectivesTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of azithromycin versus benzathine penicillin (penicillin G) for early syphilis. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the following databases using the search terms detailed in Appendix 1: the Cochrane Sexually Transmitted Diseases Group Specialized Register (July 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) published in The Cochrane Library (Issue 7 2011), MEDLINE (1948 to July 2011), EMBASE (1980 to July 2011), PsycINFO (1806 to July 2011) and the Chinese Biological Medicine Literature Database (CBM) (1978 to 2011). The search was not limited by language. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials comparing azithromycin with benzathine penicillin G at any dose for the treatment of early syphilis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria to potential studies, with any disagreements resolved by discussion. The risk of bias of each study was assessed by the same two review authors. We pooled data using an odds ratio (OR). MAIN

resultsThree studies (generating four eligible study comparisons) were included. One study is ongoing. There was no statistically significant difference between azithromycin and benzathine penicillin treatment in the odds of cure (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.56); nor any difference at three months (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.50), six months (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.54) or nine months (OR 1.45, 95% CI 0.46 to 6.42). Subgroup analysis by primary and latent syphilis and by dose of azithromycin (2 g and 4 g) did not explain the variation between the study results. The reporting of computed mild to tolerated adverse events, from two included trials, indicated no statistically significant difference between azithromycin and benzathine penicillin (OR 1.43, 95% CI 0.42 to 4.95), although with a high level of heterogeneity (P = 0.05, I(2) = 74%). AUTHORS'

conclusionsDifferences in the odds of cure did not reach statistical significance when azithromycin was compared with benzathine penicillin for the treatment of early syphilis. No definitive conclusion can be made regarding the relative safety of benzathine penicillin G and azithromycin for early syphilis. Further studies on the utility of benzathine penicillin G for early syphilis are warranted.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsAzithromycinHumansPenicillin G BenzathineRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSyphilisTreponema pallidumAnti-Bacterial AgentsAzithromycinPenicillin G Benzathine

Identifiers

PMID22696367
PMCPMC11337171
OpenAlexW1922250060

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.