Trial reportInternational urogynecology journal2014
Prulifloxacin vs fosfomycin for prophylaxis in female patients with recurrent UTIs: a non-inferiority trial.
Trial report in International urogynecology journal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Formulation, development and characterization of fosfomycin tromethamine pessaries for the treatment of vaginal infections.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Antimicrobial Prophylaxis for Recurrent Urinary Tract Infections in Premenopausal and Postmenopausal Women: A Retrospective Observational Study from an Outpatient Clinic in a Tertiary University Hospital.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Optimizing Prevention of Recurrent Urinary Tract Infections in Older Patients with Frailty.Drugs & aging · 2025Review
- Long-Term Antibiotics for Disturbed Bladder Microbiome Disorders.International urogynecology journal · 2025Review
- Antibiotics for Preventing Recurrent Urinary Tract Infection: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Open forum infectious diseases · 2022Review
- Pharmacokinetics of fosfomycin in patients with prophylactic treatment for recurrent Escherichia coli urinary tract infection.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2020Article
- Fosfomycin.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2016Review
- Adverse Events Associated with Fosfomycin Use: Review of the Literature and Analyses of the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System Database.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThis multicentre, randomised, non-blinded, parallel group study is designed to assess the null hypothesis that a 3-month prophylactic schedule with fosfomycin is not inferior to prulifloxacin in reducing the number of urinary tract infection episodes during and after prophylaxis in female patients with recurrent urinary tract infections (rUTIs).
methodsOne hundred and fifty-two patients with rUTIs who were candidates for prophylaxis therapy were enrolled and randomised to prulifloxacin (group 1) or fosfomycin (group 2). The prophylaxis regimen included a single dose of fosfomycin (one 3-g cachet) per week, or a single dose (600 mg) of prulifloxacin (one tablet) a week for 12 weeks. The inclusion criteria were female patients over 18 years, urine culture responsiveness to drugs at patient recruitment and history of rUTI. Exclusion criteria were pregnancy and counter-indications to this drug therapy. Patients were prospectively randomised. Check-ups were scheduled at 2 weeks, 1 month and 3 months from the beginning of the study and 3, 6, and 12 months after suspension of the therapy. The primary end-points were the reduction of the number of UTIs (negative urine culture) during and after prophylaxis.
resultsFinal data analysis included 67 patients in group 1 and 57 in group 2. Nine out of 76 patients (group 1) and 19 out of 76 (group 2) dropped out. UTI episodes were significantly reduced in number compared with before prophylaxis (p < 0.0001) at all study end-points in both groups. No significant differences were found in disease-free duration, as achieved by the two therapy groups (log-rank test; p = 0.41), in the reduction of UTI episodes during and after prophylaxis, in the adverse effects or improved quality of life.
conclusionsBoth drugs provided adequate prophylaxis in patients with rUTIs, with no difference in efficacy.
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.