ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2015
A 3-day regimen with azithromycin 1.5% eyedrops for the treatment of purulent bacterial conjunctivitis in children: efficacy on clinical signs and impact on the burden of illness.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antibiotics versus placebo for acute bacterial conjunctivitis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Besifloxacin Ophthalmic Suspension 0.6% Compared with Gatifloxacin Ophthalmic Solution 0.3% for the Treatment of Bacterial Conjunctivitis in Neonates.Drugs in R&D · 2017Trial
- Perspectives of Healthcare Professionals on the Treatment Landscape of Ocular Redness.Patient preference and adherence · 2026Article
- Efficacy of azithromycin 1% and 1.5% ophthalmic solutions compared to tobramycin 0.3% eye drops: A systematic review and meta-analysis.SAGE open medicine · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the efficacy of azithromycin 1.5% versus tobramycin 0.3% eyedrops on clinical ocular signs and symptoms of bacterial conjunctivitis in children and to assess the parents' satisfaction regarding the dosing regimen. PATIENTS AND
methodsAn international, multicenter, randomized, investigator-masked, controlled clinical trial conducted in children (1 day to 18 years old) with bulbar conjunctival hyperemia and purulent discharge. Azithromycin 1.5% was administered as 1 drop twice daily for 3 days, and tobramycin 0.3% as 1 drop every 2 hours for 2 days, then 4 times daily for 5 days.
resultsA total of 286 patients (mean age: 3.2 years) were enrolled. In children with bacteriologically positive cultures (N=203), azithromycin produced a significantly greater improvement in conjunctival discharge (P<0.01) and a trend (P=0.054) toward improvement in conjunctival hyperemia at day 7 than did tobramycin. Complete resolution of conjunctival discharge was significantly more frequent at day 3 on azithromycin than tobramycin (P=0.005). More parents found azithromycin easier to use (in terms of treatment duration, total number of instillations, instilling drops during the day, and difficulty in performing daily activities) than tobramycin.
conclusionThe azithromycin 1.5% regimen produced a rapid resolution of cardinal signs of purulent bacterial conjunctivitis with a more convenient dosage regimen. Such improved convenience is likely to improve compliance and lessen the burden of illness for patients and carers.
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.