SynthesisBMJ open2018
Non-standard treatment for uncomplicated
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo review the literature for non-standard treatment options for uncomplicated
designSystematic review. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE/PubMed, Ovid EMBASE, Cochrane Trials & Systematic Review Databases, CINAHL Plus with Full Text, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, ClinicalTrials.gov and Health Canada Trials Database were searched for studies in English or French from 1 January 2006 to 6 August 2017. Keywords included CT, anti-infective or anti-bacterial agents, therapy/pharmacotherapy/management. REVIEW
methodsIncluded were primary research studies. Outcome measures included clinical or microbiological cure, treatment failure and adverse events. We followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies were assessed for risk of bias using the Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias V.2.0 tool for randomised and the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for non-randomised studies. FUNDING SOURCE: Public Health Agency of Canada.
resultsOf the 6899 records identified through the database search, 11 studies were included. One randomised controlled trial reported that delayed release doxycycline was non-inferior to azithromycin. Two studies examined higher doses of azithromycin but reported no additional benefit. One study looked at a 5-day azithromycin treatment regimen and reported a high cure rate. Two studies reported efficacy of sitafloxacin, and a single study supports the use of levofloxacin. Two phase 2 studies reported efficacy of single-dose rifalazil in both men and women. Only one retrospective study was identified that examined treatment in pregnant women and reported that efficacy with single-dose azithromycin exceeded that of amoxicillin and erythromycin. A single study examining the efficacy of a beta-lactam antibiotic was stopped early due to high treatment failures.
conclusionsThe paucity of existing data highlights the need for further adequately powered studies to evaluate rifalazil, delayed release doxycycline, levofloxacin and other agents for the treatment of uncomplicated CT infections. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017073096.
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.