Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32566969›Full record

SynthesisInternal and emergency medicine2021

Short vs long-course antibiotic therapy in pyelonephritis: a comparison of systematic reviews and guidelines for the SIMI choosing wisely campaign.

Luca Erba, Ludovico Furlan, Alice Monti, Elisa Marsala, Giulia Cernuschi, Monica Solbiati, Christian Bracco, Giulia Bandini, Monica Pecorino Meli, Giovanni Casazza and 3 more

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Internal and emergency medicine, 2021. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. [S3 guideline on sepsis-prevention, diagnosis, therapy, and follow-up care-update 2025].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2025
    Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Luca ErbaUniversità Degli Studi Di Milano, Milan, Italy. luca.erba@unimi.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9082-510X
Ludovico FurlanUniversità Degli Studi Di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Alice MontiUniversità Degli Studi Di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Elisa MarsalaUniversità Degli Studi Di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Giulia CernuschiUOC Pronto Soccorso E Medicina D'Urgenza, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.
Monica SolbiatiUOC Pronto Soccorso E Medicina D'Urgenza, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.
Christian BraccoDepartment of Internal Medicine, Santa Croce and Carle General Hospital, Cuneo, Italy.
Giulia BandiniMedicina Interna, Università Degli Studi Di Firenze, AOU Careggi, Firenze, Italy.
Monica Pecorino MeliDipartimento Delle Professioni Sanitarie, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.
Giovanni CasazzaDipartimento Di Scienze Biomediche E Cliniche "L. Sacco", Università Degli Studi Di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Nicola MontanoDipartimento Di Medicina Interna, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.
Rodolfo SbrojavaccaDipartimento Di Pronto Soccorso E Medicina D'Urgenza, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Di Udine, Udine, Italy.
Giorgio CostantinoUOC Pronto Soccorso E Medicina D'Urgenza, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.
University of Milan · ITFondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico · ITAzienda Sanitaria Ospedaliera S.Croce e Carle Cuneo · ITOspedale Santa Maria della Misericordia di Udine · ITUniversity of Florence · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Italian Society of Internal Medicine (SIMI) Choosing Wisely Campaign has recently proposed, among its five items, to reduce the prescription of long-term intravenous antibiotics if not indicated. The aim of our study was to assess the available evidences on optimal duration of antibiotic treatment in pyelonephritis through a systematic review of secondary studies. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe searched for all guidelines on pyelonephritis and systematic reviews assessing the optimal duration of antibiotic therapy in this type of infection. We compared the recommendations of the three most cited and recent guidelines on the topic of interest. We extracted data of non-duplicated RCT from the selected systematic reviews and performed meta-analyses for clinical and microbiological failure. A trial sequential analysis (TSA) was also achieved to identify the need for further evidence.

resultsWe identified 4 systematic reviews, including data from 10 non-duplicated RCTs (1536 patients). The meta-analysis showed a higher rate of clinical cure for short-course antibiotic treatment (RR for clinical failure 0.70, 95% CI [0.53-0.94]). No significant difference in the rate of microbiological failure (RR 1.06, 95% CI [0.75-1.49]) was observed. In terms of clinical cure, the TSA suggests that current evidence is sufficient to consider short course at least as effective as long-course treatment. Selected guidelines recommend considering shorter courses, but do not cite most of the published RCTs.

conclusionsShort-course antibiotic treatment is at least as effective as longer courses for both microbiological and clinical success in the treatment of acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicAnti-Bacterial AgentsHumansPyelonephritisAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntibiotic treatmentChoosing wiselyGuidelinesPyelonephritisSystematic reviewUrinary tract infection

Identifiers

PMID32566969
OpenAlexW2896991881

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.