SynthesisFrontiers in public health2022
Evaluation of the Therapeutic Effect of Antibiotics on Scrub Typhus: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 2022. 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, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Doxycycline vs azithromycin in patients with scrub typhus: a systematic review of literature and meta-analysis.BMC infectious diseases · 2023Pooled it
- Concurrent Scrub Typhus, Dengue, and Leptospirosis: A Rare Triple Co-Infection: A Case Report and Comprehensive Literature Review.Clinical case reports · 2026Article
- Omadacycline in the treatment of scrub typhus: Three case reports.World journal of clinical cases · 2024Article
- Epidemiology, clinical characteristics, diagnosis, and complications of scrub typhus infection in Nepal: a systematic review.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2023Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To explore the efficacy and safety of drugs in patients with scrub typhus. Methods: For this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang data (WF) up to December 2021. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of antibiotics used to treat scrub typhus were included without language or date restrictions. The overall effectiveness was evaluated from 4 perspectives: cure rate (CR), defervescence time (DT), gastrointestinal symptoms-adverse events (GS-AD), and abnormal blood count-adverse events (ABC-AD). The quality of evidence was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and GRADE system. Results: Sixteen studies involving 1,582 patients were included to evaluate 7 drugs, namely, azithromycin, doxycycline, chloramphenicol, tetracycline, rifampin, moxifloxacin, and telithromycin. In this network meta-analysis, rifampicin (82%) and chloramphenicol (65%) were more effective in terms of CR, and moxifloxacin (3%) from the quinolone family was the worst. Azithromycin caused the fewest events in terms of ABC-AD. No differences were found in this network meta-analysis (NMA) in terms of DT and GS-AD. Conclusions: Rifampicin was associated with the highest CR benefit and the lowest risk of DT when used to treat patients with scrub typhus, except in areas where tuberculosis (TB) was endemic. Azithromycin was found to be better in CR and was associated with a lower probability of GS-AD and ABC-AD; therefore, it may be considered to treat pregnant women and children. Moxifloxacin had a much lower CR than other drugs and is, therefore, not recommended for the management of scrub typhus. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier: CRD42021287837.
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.