Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23076931›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2012

Antibiotics for treating human brucellosis.

Reza Yousefi-Nooraie, Sameh Mortaz-Hejri, Mehdi Mehrani, Parham Sadeghipour

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
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 58 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
10.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

58 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 141 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Brucellosis Surveillance - United States, 2010-2024.Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Surveillance summaries (Washington, D.C. : 2002) · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Veterinary medicine international · 2026
    Review
  14. Frontiers in surgery · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Reza Yousefi-NooraieDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada. yousefr@mcmaster.ca.
Sameh Mortaz-Hejri
Mehdi Mehrani
Parham Sadeghipour
Tehran University of Medical Sciences · IRMcMaster University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBrucellosis is the most common zoonotic infection in the world. Several antibiotics, separately or in combination, have been tried for treatment of human brucellosis. The inconsistencies between different treatment regimens warrants the need for a systematic review to inform clinical practice and future research.

objectivesTo evaluate the effects of various antibiotic regimens, monotherapy or in combination with other antibiotics, for treating human brucellosis. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS until May 2012. We browsed the abstract books of several international infectious diseases conferences. We also checked the reference lists of all studies identified SELECTION CRITERIA: We included the randomized controlled trials on the pharmaceutical interventions in treatment of acute, chronic, non-complicated, and complicated human brucellosis. The outcomes of interest were relapse, persistence of symptoms at the end of treatment, and adverse drug effects. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, risk of bias, and extracted relevant data using pre-designed extraction forms. The findings of homogenous studies were pooled using fixed-effect meta-analysis. MAIN

resultsIn total we included 25 studies comparing various antibiotic regimens. Methods of allocation and concealment were inadequately described in half the studies, and only three were blinded. In comparisons of doxycycline plus rifampicin versus doxycycline plus streptomycin we found eight studies with 694 participants. For treatment failure, the doxycycline plus rifampicin regimen was less effective (risk ratio (RR) 1.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07 to 3.42, seven studies, 567 participants), relapse (RR 2.39, 95% CI 1.17 to 4.86), and minor adverse drug reactions (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.92). In comparisons of doxycycline plus rifampicin against quinolone (ciprofloxacin or ofloxacin) plus rifampicin we found five studies of 336 participants. The pooled analysis did not demonstrate any significant difference between two regimens in terms of relapse and symptom persistence, but showed a non-significant higher risk of minor adverse reactions in doxycycline plus rifampicin (RR 1.80, 95% CI 0.78 to 4.18). Other comparisons were reported in a few heterogenous studies, and the pooled analyses, where applied, did not show any significant difference. AUTHORS'

conclusionsDoxycycline (six weeks) plus streptomycin (two or three weeks) regimen is more effective regimen than doxycycline plus rifampicin (six weeks) regimen. Since it needs daily intramuscular (IM) injection, access to care and cost are important factors in deciding between two choices. Quinolone plus rifampicin (six weeks) regimen is slightly better tolerated than doxycycline plus rifampicin, and low quality evidence did not show any difference in overall effectiveness.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsBrucellosisCiprofloxacinDoxycyclineHumansOfloxacinRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRifampinStreptomycinAnti-Bacterial AgentsCiprofloxacinDoxycyclineOfloxacinRifampinStreptomycin

Identifiers

PMID23076931
PMCPMC6532606
OpenAlexW1881555395

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.