ArticleInfection and drug resistance2019
Oral sitafloxacin vs intravenous ceftriaxone followed by oral cefdinir for acute pyelonephritis and complicated urinary tract infection: a randomized controlled trial.
Article in Infection and drug resistance, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antibacterial Mechanisms and Clinical Impact of Sitafloxacin.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Efficacy of Sitafloxacin forOpen forum infectious diseases · 2023Article
- Definitions of Urinary Tract Infection in Current Research: A Systematic Review.Open forum infectious diseases · 2023Review
- Overview of Side-Effects of Antibacterial Fluoroquinolones: New Drugs versus Old Drugs, a Step Forward in the Safety Profile?Pharmaceutics · 2023Review
- Article
- Efficacy and Safety of Sitafloxacin in the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Infection: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe conventional antibiotic regimen for community-acquired upper urinary tract infections with moderate severity in Thailand is parenteral ceftriaxone (CTRX) for several days followed by oral cephalosporin for 7-14 days. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of oral sitafloxacin (STFX) with that of intravenous CTRX followed by oral cefdinir (CFDN) for the therapy of acute pyelonephritis (APN) and complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI).
methodsThis open-label, randomized, controlled, noninferiority clinical trial included patients from nine centers across Thailand. Adult patients with APN or cUTI were randomly assigned to receive 100 mg of oral STFX twice daily for 7-14 days, or 2 g of intravenous CTRX for several days followed by 100 mg of oral CFDN three times per day for another 4-12 days.
resultsA total of 289 adult patients with APN or cUTI (141 in the STFX group and 148 in the CTRX/CFDN group) were included in the intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis, and 211 patients (108 in the STFX group and 103 in the CTRX/CFDN group) were included in the per-protocol (PP) analysis. The baseline characteristics of patients in both groups were comparable. The causative pathogen in most patients with APN or cUTI was
conclusionOral STFX is noninferior to intravenous CTRX followed by oral CFDN in adult patients with APN and cUTI. Lower rates of resistance compared to CTRX and/or CFDN and oral administration suggest STFX as a more attractive treatment option in this patient population.
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.