Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40536629›Full record

SynthesisInternational urology and nephrology2025

Comparing fosfomycin and ciprofloxacin for uncomplicated UTI treatment in adults: better bacterial eradication but non-significant clinical remission-a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Muhammad Usman Hashmi, Yasmeen Sufi, Tamseela Zahoor, Hifza Hameed, Rimsha Ejaz, Nida Nisar, Rubab Zahra, Hussain Ramzan, Kundan Kumar, Lava Abdullah

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-AnalysisComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International urology and nephrology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

10 authors.

Muhammad Usman HashmiRawalpindi Medical University, Rawalpindi, Pakistan. muh.haashmi@gmail.com.
Yasmeen SufiRahmah Academy of Research Excellence, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Tamseela ZahoorRawalpindi Medical University, Rawalpindi, Pakistan.
Hifza HameedRawalpindi Medical University, Rawalpindi, Pakistan.
Rimsha EjazRawalpindi Medical University, Rawalpindi, Pakistan.
Nida NisarRawalpindi Medical University, Rawalpindi, Pakistan.
Rubab ZahraRawalpindi Medical University, Rawalpindi, Pakistan.
Hussain RamzanNishtar Medical University and Hospital, Multan, Pakistan.
Kundan KumarDow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan.
Lava AbdullahFarah Fertility Center, Damascus, Syrian Arab Republic.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUrinary tract infections (UTIs) are common in young children and women and even more so in pregnant women. Ciprofloxacin has been a long-used regime to treat UTIs, although recently the paradigm has shifted towards Fosfomycin. This shift is driven by rising antibiotic resistance, safety concerns with fluoroquinolones, and the need for alternative treatments with broader efficacy and fewer adverse effects. This systematic review and meta-analysis assess the effectiveness and safety of Fosfomycin compared to Ciprofloxacin for treating urinary tract infections in adults.

methodsA systematic search was conducted across PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Scopus using search strings combining "Fosfomycin," "Ciprofloxacin," and "urinary tract infections." Study selection and screening were managed using Covidence, with duplicates removed. Four randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria following primary and secondary screening. Data analysis was performed using Review Manager (RevMan), with results presented as forest plots. A random-effects model was applied in cases of significant heterogeneity. The outcomes assessed included clinical remission, bacterial eradication, and adverse effects, based on data from three of the included studies.

resultsFour studies matched our inclusion criteria and were processed further for analysis. For bacterial eradication, the total number of patients was 334 patients, bacterial eradication during 10 days was achieved in 143 participants in the fosfomycin group and 110 participants in the ciprofloxacin group. Bacterial eradication was significantly higher in the fosfomycin group compared to the ciprofloxacin group (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.22-3.36, p = 0.006). For clinical remission, no significant difference was found in 3 studies in a total of 278 patients (OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.72-2.21, p = 0.42). Out of a total of 356 patients, 74 experienced adverse effects in the fosfomycin group and 46 in the ciprofloxacin group. The appearance of adverse effects was significantly higher in the fosfomycin group (OR 2.66, CI 1.53-4.62, p = 0.0005).

conclusionThe results of our meta-analysis show that bacterial eradication was significantly higher in the Fosfomycin group compared to the Ciprofloxacin group. There was no difference between the two drugs in terms of clinical remission. The appearance of adverse effects was significantly higher in the Fosfomycin group. Despite a higher incidence of adverse effects, Fosfomycin demonstrated superior bacterial eradication, suggesting its potential role as an effective empirical option, particularly in regions with elevated fluoroquinolone resistance. Hence, it was deduced that Fosfomycin is more effective than Ciprofloxacin for bacterial eradication in the treatment of urinary tract infections. These findings are influenced by significant heterogeneity in study design, populations, and outcome definitions, which should be considered when interpreting the pooled estimates.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsCiprofloxacinFosfomycinUrinary Tract InfectionsAdultFemaleHumansRemission InductionAnti-Bacterial AgentsCiprofloxacinFosfomycinAnti-bacterial agentsCiprofloxacinDrug resistanceFosfomycinUrinary tract infections

Identifiers

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.