Systematic review and meta-analysis on efficacy of cefixime for treating gonococcal infections.

Syed Bilal Tanvir, Syed Saad Bin Qasim, Ali Shariq, Shariq Najeeb, Altaf H Shah

Open access · greenAbstract readReview

In one paragraph

Review in International journal of health sciences. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

3citing papers in PubMed

0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 41% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

Analysis of bacterial vaginosis, the vaginal microbiome, and sexually transmitted infections following the provision of menstrual cups in Kenyan schools: Results of a nested study within a cluster randomized controlled trial.PLoS medicine · 2023
Trial
Using the genetic characteristics of Neisseria gonorrhoeae strains with decreased susceptibility to cefixime to develop a molecular assay to predict cefixime susceptibility.Sexual health · 2019
Article
Comparative efficacy of flapped versus flapless dental implant procedures: A meta-analysis.International journal of health sciences
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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Syed Bilal TanvirDepartment of Basic Medical Sciences, College of Dentistry, Dar Al Uloom University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Syed Saad Bin QasimDepartment of Biomaterials, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, College of Dentistry, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.

Ali ShariqDepartment of Clinical Microbiology, College of Medicine, Qassim University, Buraidah, Saudi Arabia.

Shariq NajeebDepartment of Clinical Clinical Research, Bow River dental, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Altaf H ShahDepartment of Preventive Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Dar Al Uloom University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Bow Valley College · CADar Al Uloom University · SAOsloMet – Oslo Metropolitan University · NOQassim University · SA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMETHODOLOGY: Extensive literature search for randomized controlled trials was performed using Medline, Cochrane Registry of Controlled Trials, Embase, and Clinical trials registers. The trials assessed the efficacy of cefixime against a range of comparator drugs. Primary outcome of the study was the clinical resolution of signs and symptoms and negative culture at the end of follow-up period.

resultsAfter screening for a total of 1184, only 8 studies were eligible for a meta-analysis. Risk ratio random effects model was used with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The pooled efficacy of Cefixime was at 97% at 95 CI 1.01 (0.98, 1.05). No statistically significant difference was found between oral cefixime and comparator drugs.

conclusionA total of 11 studies were included following a review of 1184 publications. 8 randomized controlled trials for 400 mg oral cefixime were included in meta-analysis. Despite a high grade of evidence, a high risk of bias was found among studies. Hence, more high quality randomized controlled trials on cefixime needs to be performed in future to guide the treatment of gonococcal infections.

Indexed as

Cefiximeefficacymeta-analysisNeisseria gonorrheasexually transmitted diseasesexually transmitted infectionssystematic review

Identifiers

PMID30202413

PMCPMC6124830

OpenAlexW2896174424

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY-NC-SA

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.