Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Formas de administración de los antibióticos para las infecciones urinarias graves sintomáticas

Contraer todo Desplegar todo

Referencias

References to studies included in this review

Baker 2001 {published data only}

Baker PC, Nelson DS, Schunk JE. The addition of ceftriaxone to oral therapy does not improve outcome in febrile children with urinary tract infections. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 2001;155(2):135‐9. [MEDLINE: 11177086]

Childs 1990 {published data only}

Childs SJ. Intravenous and oral ciprofloxacin versus intravenous ceftazidime for the treatment of severe urinary tract infections. Diagnostic Microbiology & Infectious Disease 1990;13(2):161‐3. [MEDLINE: 2196152]

Fischbach 1989 {published data only}

Fischbach M, Simeoni U, Mengus L, Jehl F, Monteil H, Geisert J, et al. Urinary tract infections with tissue penetration in children: cefotaxime compared with amoxycillin/clavulanate. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 1989;24 Suppl B:177‐83. [MEDLINE: 2691478]

Francois 1997 {published data only}

Francois P, Bensman A, Begue P, Artaz MA, Coudeville L, Lebrun T, et al. Assessment of the efficacy and cost efficiency of two strategies in the treatment of acute pyelonephritis in children: Oral cefixime or parenteral ceftriaxone after an initial IV combination therapy. Medecine et Maladies Infectieuses 1997;27(Spec. Iss. June):667‐73. [EMBASE: 1997230388]

Gok 2001 {published data only}

Gok F, Duzova A, Baskin E, Ozen S, Besbas N, Bakkaloglu A. Comparative study of cefixime alone versus intramuscular ceftizoxime followed by cefixime in the treatment of urinary tract infections in children. Journal of Chemotherapy 2001;13(3):277‐80. [MEDLINE: 11450886]

Hoberman 1999 {published and unpublished data}

Hoberman A, Wald ER, Hickey RW, Baskin M, Charron M, Majd M, et al. Oral versus initial intravenous therapy for urinary tract infections in young febrile children. Pediatrics 1999;104(1 Pt 1):79‐86. [MEDLINE: 10390264]

Millar 1995 {published data only}

Millar LK, Wing DA, Paul RH, Grimes DA. Outpatient treatment of pyelonephritis in pregnancy: A randomized controlled trial. Obstetrics & Gynecology 1995;86(4 Pt 1):560‐4. [MEDLINE: 7675380]

Mombelli 1999 {published and unpublished data}

Mombelli G, Pezzoli R, Pinoja‐Lutz G, Monotti R, Marone C, Franciolli M. Oral vs intravenous ciprofloxacin in the initial empirical management of severe pyelonephritis or complicated urinary tract infections: A prospective randomized clinical trial. Archives of Internal Medicine 1999;159(1):53‐8. [MEDLINE: 9892331]

Montini 2007 {published data only}

Montini G, Murer L, Gobber D, Comacchio S, Toffolo A, Dall'Amico R, et al. Oral vs inital intravenous antibiotic treatment of urinary tract infections in children: a multicentre study [abstract]. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 2003;18(Suppl 4):816. [CENTRAL: CN‐00446817]

Neuhaus 2008 {published and unpublished data}

Buechner K, Girardin F, Berger C, Willi U, Nadaf D, Neuhaus T for the Swiss Pyelonephritis Study Group. Randomised controlled trial of oral versus sequential intravenous/oral cephalosporins in DMSA scintigraphy‐documented acute pyelonephritis [abstract no: COD. OP 18]. Pediatric Nephrology 2006;21(10):1511.
Neuhaus TJ, Büchner K, Girardin E, Willi U, Berger C, Nadal D. Oral verus sequentiel intravenous/oral cephalosporin‐therapy in DMSA‐scintigraphy documented acute pyelonephritis: randomized Swiss pyelonephritis‐study [abstract] [Orale versus sequentiell intravenös/orale Cephalosporin‐Therapie bei DMSA‐Szintigraphie dokumentierter akuter Pyelonephritis: Randomisierte Schweizer Pyelonephritis‐Studie]. Nieren‐ und Hochdruckkrankheiten 2007;36(2):43.

Noorbakhsh 2004 {published and unpublished data}

Noorbakhsh S, Lari AR, Masjedian F, Mostafavi H, Alaghehbandan R. Comparison of intravenous aminoglycoside therapy with switch therapy to cefixime in urinary tract infections. Saudi Medical Journal 2004;25(10):1513‐5. [MEDLINE: 15494842]

Puppo 1989 {published data only}

Puppo P, Germinale F, De Rose A. Aztreonam vs norfloxacin: a comparative study of the treatment of urinary tract infections in ambulatory and hospitalized patients. Clinica Terapeutica 1989;129(2):113‐21. [MEDLINE: 2525996]

Regnier 1989 {published data only}

Regnier B, Brion N, Calamy G, Dureux JB, Humbert G, Imbert Y, et al. A comparative study of intra‐venous ceftriaxone followed by oral cefixime versus parenteral ceftriaxone alone in the treatment of severe upper urinary tract infections. Presse Medicale 1989;18(32):1617‐21. [EMBASE: 1989252114]

Sanchez 2002 {published data only}

Sanchez M, Collvinent B, Miro O, Horcajada JP, Moreno A, Marco F, et al. Short‐term effectiveness of ceftriaxone single dose in the initial treatment of acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis in women. A randomised controlled trial. Emergency Medicine Journal 2002;19(1):19‐22. [MEDLINE: 11777865]

Vilaichone 2001 {published data only}

Vilaichone A, Watana D, Chaiwatanarat T. Oral ceftibuten switch therapy for acute pyelonephritis in children. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand 2001;84 Suppl 1:S61‐7. [MEDLINE: 11529382]

References to studies excluded from this review

Abraham 1982 {published data only}

Abraham E, Baraff LJ. Oral versus parenteral therapy of pyelonephritis. Current Therapeutic Research, Clinical & Experimental 1982;31(4):536‐43. [EMBASE: 1982138442]

Ahmetagic 2003 {published data only}

Ahmetagic S, Jusufovic E, Cengic D, Koluder N, Bajramovic N, Calkic L, et al. Clinical study of the efficacy of the antimicrobiotic agent amoxicillin + clavunalic acid (xiclav) and the possibility of early parenteral to oral switch therapy in the management of Infections. Medicinski Arhiv 2003;57(5‐6):263‐6.

Angel 1990 {published data only}

Angel JL, O'Brien WF, Finan MA, Morales WJ, Lake M, Knuppel RA. Acute pyelonephritis in pregnancy: a prospective study of oral versus intravenous antibiotic therapy. Obstetrics & Gynecology 1990;76(1):28‐32. [MEDLINE: 2193265]

Benador 2001 {published data only}

Benador D, Neuhaus TJ, Papazyan JP, Willi UV, Engel‐Bicik I, Nadal D, et al. Randomised controlled trial of three day versus 10 day intravenous antibiotics in acute pyelonephritis: effect on renal scarring. Archives of Disease in Childhood 2001;84(3):241‐6. [MEDLINE: 11207174]

Buchi 1988 {published data only}

Buchi W, Casey PA. Experience with parenteral and sequential parenteral‐oral amoxicillin/clavulanate (augmentin) in hospitalized patients. Infection 1988;16(5):306‐12. [MEDLINE: 3215694]

Bunnag 2003 {published data only}

Bunnag T, Kietkajornkul C. Out‐patient antibiotics switch therapy in pediatric urinary tract infection. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand 2003;86 Suppl 3:543‐8. [MEDLINE: 14700146]

Cherubin 1986 {published data only}

Cherubin C, Stilwell S. Norfloxacin versus parenteral therapy in the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections and resistant organisms. Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Diseases Supplement 1986;48:32‐7. [MEDLINE: 3535053]

Concia 2006 {published data only}

Concia E, Marchetti F, LEVT07 Study Group. Early discharge of hospitalised patients with community‐acquired urosepsis when treated with levofloxacin in sequential therapy. Archivio Italiano di Urologia, Andrologia 2006;78(3):112‐4. [MEDLINE: 17137026]

Cox 1987 {published data only}

Cox CE, McCabe RE, Grad C. Oral norfloxacin versus parenteral treatment of nosocomial urinary tract infection. American Journal of Medicine 1987;82(6B):59‐64. [MEDLINE: 3300312]
Scheife RT, Cox CE, McCabe RE, Grad C. Norfloxacin vs best parenteral therapy in treatment of moderate to serious, multiply‐resistant, nosocomial urinary tract infections: a pharmacoeconomic analysis. Urology 1988;32(3 Suppl):24‐30. [MEDLINE: 3138806]

Cox 1989 {published data only}

Cox CE. Brief report: Sequential intravenous and oral ciprofloxacin versus intravenous ceftazidime in the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections. American Journal of Medicine 1989;87(5A):157S‐159S. [EMBASE: 1990005329]

Daly 1989 {published data only}

Daly JS, Worthington MG, Razvi SA, Robillard R. Brief report: Intravenous and sequential intravenous and oral ciprofloxacin in the treatment of severe infections. American Journal of Medicine 1989;87(5A):232S‐234S. [EMBASE: 1990005347]

Esposito 1991 {published data only}

Esposito S, Sardaro C, Gaeta GB, Galante D, Giusti G, Basani F. Cefodizime (HR221) versus norfloxacin for treatment of urinary tract infections. Journal of Chemotherapy 1991;31(1):42‐4. [MEDLINE: 2019862]

Fang 1991 {published data only}

Fang G, Brennen C, Wagener M, Swanson D, Hilf M, Zadecky L, et al. Use of ciprofloxacin versus use of aminoglycosides for therapy of complicated urinary tract infection: Prospective, randomized clinical and pharmacokinetic study. Antimicrobial Agents & Chemotherapy 1991;35(9):1849‐55. [MEDLINE: 1952856]

Fass 1989 {published data only}

Fass RJ, Plouffe JF, Russell JA. Intravenous/oral ciprofloxacin versus ceftazidime in the treatment of serious infections. American Journal of Medicine 1989;87(5A):164S‐168S. [MEDLINE: 2589361]

Gangji 1989 {published data only}

Gangji D, Jacobs F, De Jonckheer J, Coppens L, Serruys E, Hanotte F, et al. Brief report: Randomized study of intravenous versus sequential intravenous/oral regimen of ciprofloxacin in the treatment of gram‐negative septicemia. American Journal of Medicine 1989;87(5A):206S‐208S. [EMBASE: 1990005341]

Gaut 1989 {published data only}

Gaut PL, Carbon WC, Ching WTW, Meyer RD. Intravenous/oral ciprofloxacin therapy versus intravenous ceftazidime therapy for selected bacterial infections. American Journal of Medicine 1989;78(5A):169S‐175S. [MEDLINE: 2686417]

Gelfand 1993 {published data only}

Gelfand MS, Simmons BP, Craft RB, Grogan J. A sequential study of intravenous and oral fleroxacin in the treatment of complicated urinary tract infection. American Journal of Medicine 1993;94(3A):126S‐130S. [MEDLINE: 8452168]

Giamarellou 1989 {published data only}

Giamarellou H, Perdikaris G, Galanakis N, Davoulos G, Mandragos K, Sfikakis P. Pefloxacin versus ceftazidime in the treatment of a variety of gram‐negative‐bacterial infections. Antimicrobial Agents & Chemotherapy 1989;33(8):1362‐7. [MEDLINE: 2679374]

Harding 1993 {published data only}

Harding G, Nicolle L, Wenman W, Richards G, Louie T, Martel A, et al. Randomised comparison of oral ciprofloxacin vs standard parenteral therapy in the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections. Drugs 1993;46(Suppl 3):333‐4. [EMBASE: 1993243049]

Kalager 1992 {published data only}

Kalager T, Andersen BM, Bergan T, Brubakk O, Bruun JN, Doskeland B, et al. Ciprofloxacin versus a tobramycin/cefuroxime combination in the treatment of serious systemic infections: A prospective, randomized and controlled study of efficacy and safety. [erratum appears in Scand J Infect Dis 1993;25(2):271]. Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Diseases 1993;24(5):637‐46. [MEDLINE: 1465583]

Kanellakopoulou 1990 {published data only}

Kanellakopoulou K, Giamarellou H. Clinical experinece with parenteral and oral ofloxacin in severe infections. Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Diseases Supplement 1990;22(68):64‐9. [EMBASE: 1990265153]

Le Conte 2001 {published data only}

Le Conte P, Simon N, Bourrier P, Merit JB, Lebrin P, Bonnieux J, et al. Acute pyelonephritis. Randomized multicenter double‐blind study comparing ciprofloxacin with combined ciprofloxacin and tobramycin. Presse Medicale 2001;30(1):11‐5. [MEDLINE: 11210578]

Levtchenko 2001a {published data only}

Levtchenko E, Lahy C, Levy J, Ham H, Piepsz A. Treatment of children with acute pyelonephritis: a prospective randomized study. Pediatric Nephrology 2001;16(11):878‐84. [MEDLINE: 11685593]

Lorian 1994 {published data only}

Lorian V, Pavletich K. Oral ciprofloxacin versus intravenous therapy with other non‐quinolone agents: A study of 291 infections. Drugs Under Experimental & Clinical Research 1994;20(5):209‐14. [MEDLINE: 7875058]

Matilla 1982 {published data only}

Matilla J, Kyronseppa H, Pettersson T, et al. Parenteral cephalexin lysinate followed by oral cephalexin in the treatment of serious pulmonary and urinary tract infections ‐ a comparison with cephradine. Drugs Under Experimental & Clinical Research 1982;8(5):493‐8. [EMBASE: 1983059737]

Michaelis 1993 {published data only}

Michaelis WE, Bischoff W, Braun HP, Bruehl P, Gerhardts W, Hochberg K, et al. Combined intravenous and oral treatment in complicated UTI: Lomefloxacin vs ciprofloxacin [abstract]. Drugs 1993;46(Suppl 3):348. [EMBASE: 1993243057]

Nicolle 1991 {published data only}

Nicolle LE, Degelau J, Alessi P, Cullison J, Meyers B. Ofloxacin use in a geriatric population. Chemotherapy 1991;37 Suppl 1:49‐51. [MEDLINE: 2049965]

Paladino 1991 {published data only}

Paladino JA, Sperry HE, Backes JM, Gelber JA, Serrianne DJ, Cumbo TJ, et al. Clinical and economic evaluation of oral ciprofloxacin after an abbreviated course of intravenous antibiotics. American Journal of Medicine 1991;91(5):462‐70. [MEDLINE: 1951408]

Peacock 1989 {published data only}

Peacock Jr JE, Pegram PS, Weber SF, Leone PA. Prospective, randomized comparison of sequential intravenous followed by oral ciprofloxacin with intravenous ceftazidime in the treatment of serious infections. American Journal of Medicine 1989;87(5A):185S‐190S. [MEDLINE: 2686421]

Raz 1988 {published data only}

Raz R, Chaimowitsh G, Keness Y, Sudarsky M. Oral ciprofloxacin as a follow‐up treatment for complicated urinary tract infections due to organisms resistant to oral antibiotics. Urologia 1988;55(2):123‐7. [EMBASE: 1988159373]

Robson 1993 {published data only}

Robson RA, Bailey RR, Lynn KL. Lomefloxacin pharmacokinetics after intravenous and oral administration in patients with acute pyelonephritis [abstract]. Drugs 1993;46(Suppl 3):269. [EMBASE: 1993243011]

Safrin 1988 {published data only}

Safrin S, Siegel D, Black D. Pyelonephritis in adult women: Inpatient versus outpatient therapy. American Journal of Medicine 1988;85(6):793‐8. [MEDLINE: 3195603]

Sannier 2000 {published data only}

Sannier N, Le Masne A, Sayegh N, Gaillard JL, Cheron G. Ambulatory management of acute pyelonephritis in children. Acta Paediatrica 2000;89(3):372‐3. [MEDLINE: 10772296]

Timmerman 1992 {published data only}

Timmerman C, Hoepelman I, de Hond J, Boon T, Schreinemachers L, Mensink H, et al. Open, randomized comparison of pefloxacin and cefotaxime in the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections. Infection 1992;20(1):34‐7. [MEDLINE: 1563810]

Dickersin 1994

Dickersin K, Scherer R, Lefebvre C. Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. BMJ 1994;309(6964):1286‐91. [MEDLINE: 7718048]

Gonzalez 1999

Gonzalez CM, Schaeffer AJ. Treatment of urinary tract infection: what's old, what's new, and what works. World Journal of Urology 1999;17(6):372‐82. [MEDLINE: 10654368]

Hansson 1999

Hansson S, Jodal U. Urinary tract infection. In: Barratt TM, Avner ED, HarmanWE editor(s). Pediatric Nephrology. 4th Edition. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 1999:835‐50.

Higgins 2003

Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta‐analyses. BMJ 2003;327(7414):557‐60. [MEDLINE: 12958120]

Jones 1996

Jones B, Jarvis P, Lewis JA, Ebbutt AF. Trials to assess equivalence: the importance of rigorous methods. BMJ 1996;313(7048):36‐9. [MEDLINE: 8664772]

Kunin 1994

Kunin CM. Urinary tract infections in females. Clinical Infectious Diseases 1994;18(1):1‐10. [MEDLINE: 8054415]

Lefebvre 1996

Lefebvre C, McDonald S. Development of a sensitive search strategy for reports of randomized controlled trials in EMBASE. Fourth International Cochrane Colloquium; 1996 Oct 20‐24; Adelaide (Australia). 1996.

Levtchenko 2001

Levtchenko E, Ham HR, Levy J, Piepsz A. Attitude of Belgian pediatricians toward strategy in acute pyelonephritis. Pedatric Nephrology 2001;16(2):113‐5. [MEDLINE: 11261676]

Master List 2007

United States Cochrane Center. Master list of journals being searched. http://apps1.jhsph.edu/cochrane/masterlist.asp(accessed 2007).

McCracken 1989

McCracken GH. Options in antimicrobial management of urinary tract infections in infants and children. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal 1989;8(8):552‐5. [MEDLINE: 2771540]

Orenstein 1999

Orenstein R, Wong ES. Urinary tract infections in adults. American Family Physician 1999;59(5):1225‐34, 1237. [MEDLINE: 10088877]

Ransley 1981

Ransley PG, Risdon RA. Reflux nephropathy: effects of antimicrobial therapy on the evolution of the early pyelonephritic scar. Kidney International 1981;20(6):733‐42. [MEDLINE: 7038262]

Smellie 1994

Smellie JM, Poulton A, Prescod NP. Retrospective study of children with renal scarring associated with reflux and urinary infection. BMJ 1994;308(6938):1193‐6. [MEDLINE: 8180534]

Stamm 1993

Stamm WE, Hooton TM. Management of urinary tract infections in adults. New England Journal of Medicine 1993;329(18):1328‐34. [MEDLINE: 8413414]

Winberg 1974

Winberg J, Andersen HJ, Bergstrom T, Jacobsson B, Larson H, Lincoln K. Epidemiology of symptomatic urinary tract infection in childhood. Acta Paediatrica Scandinavica ‐ Supplement 1974, (252):1‐20. [MEDLINE: 4618418]

References to other published versions of this review

Pohl 2001

Pohl A, Antes G, Forster J. Modes of administration of antibiotics for symptomatic urinary tract infections. (Protocol). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2001, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003237]

Characteristics of studies

Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID]

Baker 2001

Methods

Prospective RCT at a tertiary care centre.
No central randomisation.
Opaque envelopes blindly selected from bin, clinicians blinded.

Participants

INCLUSION CRITERIA
Number: 34 (group 1), 35 (group 2).
Gender (F/total): 32/34 (group 1), 30/35 (group 2).
Age: 6 months to 12 years.
Fever > 38.0°C, history and physical examination suggesting UTI and positive urine culture from catheter specimen or MSU.

EXCLUSION CRITERIA
Abnormality of urinary tract, already taking antibiotics, allergy to study medication.

Interventions

TREATMENT GROUP 1
Single shot IM /oral therapy.
Ceftriaxone IM 50 mg/kg once initially followed by oral trimethoprim 10 mg/kg/d for 10 days.

TREATMENT GROUP 2
Oral therapy.
Trimethoprim 10 mg/kg/d for 10 days.

Outcomes

1. Clinical and bacteriological cure after 48 hours.
2. Bacteriological cure rate after 48 hours.
3. Reinfection after interval of 1 month (n, %)
4. Relapse rate after interval of 1 month (n, %).
5. Adverse events rate (n, %).

Notes

Of 95 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 87 were enrolled (6 gave no consent, 2 were not petitioned).
Fourteen patients were excluded after randomisation because urine culture was negative.
Three (group 1) and 1 (group 2) were lost to follow‐up.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

A ‐ Adequate

Childs 1990

Methods

Prospective RCT.
Computer‐generated randomisation.
No ITT.

Participants

INCLUSION CRITERIA
Number: 19 (group 1), 21 (group 2).
Gender (M/F): unknown.
Age: > 18 years.
Clinical symptoms of severe UTI requiring parenteral antibiotic therapy and a positive urine culture.

EXCLUSION CRITERIA
Cases of allergy, severe underlying disease, renal impairment, pregnancy, urinary tract obstruction, catheterization.

Interventions

GROUP 1
IV switch therapy.
Ciprofloxacin 200 mg twice daily IV for 2 to 5 days, followed by 500 mg twice daily orally for up to 14 days.

GROUP 2
IV therapy.
Ceftazidime 500 mg thrice daily for 4 to 9 days.

Outcomes

1. Clinical cure rate at end of therapy (clinical cure or improvement at end of therapy, bacteriologic eradication 5 to 9 days after therapy end).
2. Bacteriological cure rate at end of therapy (clinical cure or improvement at end of therapy, bacteriologic eradication 5 to 9 days after therapy end).
3. Reinfection rate at end of therapy.

Notes

Of 63 patients enrolled, 23 were excluded from evaluation because of missing/sterile urine culture before or after therapy (20), pathogen resistant to study drug (2) or renal impairment (1).
Two patients in each group had acute prostatitis, 1 patient in IV group had epididymitis.
Fifteen patients in each group were classified as having complicated UTI.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

A ‐ Adequate

Fischbach 1989

Methods

Prospective RCT.
Randomisation table.
No information whether ITT.

Participants

INCLUSION CRITERIA
Number: 10 (group 1), 10 (group 2).
Age: children, age not stated.
Gender (F/total): 8/10 (group 1), 7/10 (group 2).
Less than 1 year with fever > 38.5°C, pyuria, bacteriuria, positive urine culture, ESR > 35 mm/h, elevated CRP and orosomucoid.

EXCLUSION CRITERIA
Beta lactam allergy, antibiotic therapy 72 hours before study inclusion, impaired renal function or post‐op infection.

Interventions

GROUP 1
IV switch therapy.
amoxicillin/clavulanate acid 100 mg/kg/d IV for 7 days followed by 50 mg/kg/d po for 7 days.

GROUP 2
IV therapy.
Cefotaxime 100 mg/kg/d IV for 14 days.

Outcomes

1. Number of patients with fever > 48 hours.
2. Number of patients with bacteriological cure after 48 hours.
3. Number of patients with reinfection after interval (7 days after end of therapy).
4. Number of patients with relapse after interval (7 days after end of therapy).
5. Number of patients with adverse events.
6. Lab parameter.
7. No treatment failure rate.
8. No clinical cure rate.

Notes

No patient flow diagram.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear

Francois 1997

Methods

Prospective, multicentre RCT.
Randomisation per telephone call (Minitel) at day 4.
No ITT.

Participants

INCLUSION CRITERIA
Number: 63 (group 1), 65 (group 2).
Age: 6 months to 10 years.
Gender (F/total): 57/63 (group 1), 57/65 (group 2).
Fever > 38.0°C, elevated CRP, pyuria, bacteriuria, positive urine culture with germ sensitive to ceftriaxon, netilmicin and cefixime.

EXCLUSION CRITERIA
Allergy to antibiotics, catheterization, complicated UTI, immune deficiency, kidney failure, urine culture not sterile after 48 hours of treatment.

Interventions

GROUP 1
IV switch therapy.
Ceftriaxon 50 mg/kg/d IV and netilmicin 6 to 7.5 mg/kg/d IV for 4 days followed by cefixime 8 mg/kg/d PO for 6 days.

GROUP 2
IV/IM therapy.
Ceftriaxon/netilmicin for 4 days followed by ceftriaxon 50 mg/kg/d IM or IV for 6 days.

CO INTERVENTIONS
Both groups received antibiotic prophylaxis for 20 days (nitroxoline).

Outcomes

1. Cure rate defined as no clinical signs and bacteriological eradication 48 hours after end of treatment (n, %) and after interval of 20 to 30 days.
2. Reinfection rate after interval (20 to 30 days) (n, %).
3. Adverse events rate (n, %).

Notes

Of 169 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 147 were randomised.
Seven (group 1) and 12 (group 2) were excluded from analyses because there was no evaluable result.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

A ‐ Adequate

Gok 2001

Methods

Prospective RCT at Paediatric University Hospital.
No information on method of randomisation or type of analysis (ITT?)

Participants

INCLUSION CRITERIA
Number: 25 (group 1), 29 (group 2).
Age: 2 to 13 years, mean age 6.6 ± 3.3 years.
Gender (F/total): 20/25 (group 1) 24/29 (group 2).
Symptoms of UTI and pyuria, bacteriuria and positive urine culture (clean catch urine) without antibiotic prophylaxis.

Interventions

GROUP 1
Oral therapy.
Cefixime 8 mg/kg/d for 10 days.

GROUP 2
IM switch therapy.
Ceftizoxime IM 50 mg/kg twice daily for 2 days followed by oral cefixime for 8 days.

Outcomes

1. Cure rate: defined as resolution of all signs and symptoms and eradication of pathogen at end of treatment and after 3 weeks.
2. Reinfection rate: defined as development of new or worsened signs or symptoms and infection with a new pathogen in patients who had been cured at end of treatment and after 3 weeks.
3. Relapse: defined as eradication of baseline pathogen with reappearance of same pathogen at end of treatment and after 3 weeks.

Notes

Symptoms of UTI not further specified.
No patient flow diagram.
Adverse events: one patient developed diarrhoea caused by cefixime, but no information to which group this patient belonged.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear

Hoberman 1999

Methods

Prospective, multicentre RCT.
Computer‐generated randomisation list.
Stratification based on age and duration of fever.
ITT.

Participants

INCLUSION CRITERIA
Number: 153 in each group.
Gender (F/total): 137/153 (group 1), 136/153 (group 2)
Age: 1 to 24 months.
Fever > 38.3°C, pyuria, bacteriuria and positive urine culture from catheter specimen.

EXCLUSION CRITERIA
Unequivocal source for fever, history of UTI or abnormality of urinary tract.

Interventions

GROUP 1
IV switch therapy.
Cefotaxime IV 200 mg/kg/d for 3 days or until afebrile > 24 hours, followed by oral cefixime 8 mg/kg/d for 14 days.

GROUP 2
Oral therapy.
Cefixime 16 mg/kg/d initially followed by 8 mg/kg/d for 14 days.

Outcomes

1. Cessation of fever (hours, mean ± SD).
2. Cure rate defined as resolution of clinical signs and symptoms and sterilization of urine (obtained in 291/306 children) after 24 hours.
3. Reinfection rate after interval of 6 months (n, %).
4. DMSA renal scan after 0.5 year.

Notes

Three children were not randomised because they were deemed too sick.
One child in the oral group was unable to tolerate oral drugs and was given IV drugs.
Children between 4 to 8 weeks of age and children who needed IV drip were kept at hospital, but treated orally according to protocol.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

A ‐ Adequate

Millar 1995

Methods

Prospective RCT at University hospital.
Random number table used to create sealed, opaque envelopes, randomisation in blocks of 6, envelopes kept separately.
ITT.

Participants

INCLUSION CRITERIA
Number: 60 pregnant women in each group.
Gestational week < 24 weeks, with fever > 38.4°C, flank pain, pyuria.

EXCLUSION CRITERIA
Sepsis, respiratory insufficiency, fever > 39.8°C, RR < 90/50 mm Hg, creatinine > 1.4 mg/dL, allergy to cephalosporins, inability to tolerate oral intake, serious medical illness, known renal or urologic problems, antibiotic therapy during 2 preceding weeks.

Interventions

GROUP 1
Single shot IM/oral therapy.
Ceftriaxone 1 g IM twice within 18 to 36 hours, followed by cephalexin 500 mg PO 4 times/d for 10 days.

GROUP 2
IV switch therapy.
Cefazolin 1 g three times/d until afebrile for 48 hours, followed by cephalexin 500 mg PO 4 times/d for 10 days.

CO INTERVENTIONS
All patients received oral prophylaxis with nitrofurantoin till 6 weeks postpartum.

Outcomes

1. Clinical cure during first 3 days.
2. Bacterial cure at end of therapy.
3. Adverse events rate (minor and major combined).

Notes

Of 120 patients enrolled, 1 patient each group had negative urine culture at beginning, 9 patients had no urine culture at beginning, 2 patients of Group 1 were given IV therapy because of sepsis, but all were analysed according to randomisation nevertheless (ITT).
Seven (group 1) and 3 (group 2) had no urine culture at end of therapy (of those, 3 were clinically doing well).
Number of patients with clinical cure at end of therapy not clearly presented.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

A ‐ Adequate

Mombelli 1999

Methods

Prospective, multicentre RCT at 4 community care centres.
Randomisation at each centre by sealed envelopes/code list.
No ITT.

Participants

INCLUSION CRITERIA
Number: 72 (group 1), 69 (group 2).
Gender (F/total): (44/72 (group 1), 39/69 (group 2).
Age: >18 years.
Fever > 37.5°C, pyuria, bacteriuria, leukocytosis and signs of UTI or complicating urologic conditions. Included also if culture was negative because of recent antibiotic treatment (2 in each group) or contaminated with mixed flora superimposed on one pathogen having at least 100,000 CFU (4 (group 1), 2 (group 2)).

EXCLUSION CRITERIA
Ciprofloxacin allergy, inability to take oral medicine, severe sepsis, elevated creatinine levels, renal obstruction, pregnancy, high‐risk condition (e.g. agranulocytosis).

Interventions

GROUP 1
IV switch therapy.
Ciprofloxacin IV 400 mg/d for 72 hours or until afebrile for 24 hours followed by ciprofloxacin PO 1,000 mg/d.

GROUP 2
Oral therapy.
Ciprofloxacin 400 mg/d.

Outcomes

1. Cessation of fever (days, mean, CI).
2. Combined clinical and bacteriological cure rate under therapy (after 3 to 5 days of therapy).
3. Adverse events rate.

Notes

Of 163 enrolled, 22 patients (11/group) were excluded from analysis. Of those, 19 patients did not fulfil inclusion criteria retrospectively, 2 had incomplete outcome data, 1 withdrew consent. 2 patients of each group had received other antibiotics within 24 hours before study begin and had negative urine culture at inclusion.
SD calculated based on 95% CI.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

A ‐ Adequate

Montini 2007

Methods

Prospective multicentre RCT.
Computer generated randomisation list with stratification for hospital, sex and age, block randomisation.
No information whether ITT.

Participants

INCLUSION CRITERIA
Number: 185 (group 1), 202 (group 2).
Gender: 244 females.
Age: 2 months to 6 years with normal kidney function.
First UTI defined as fever, 2 consecutive positive urinalysis, 2 positive urine cultures, high blood inflammation indices.

EXCLUSION CRITERIA
Excluded in case of urinary tract malformation, serious illness, hypersensitivity to antibiotics.

Interventions

GROUP 1
Oral therapy.
amoxicillin/clavulanic acid 50 mg/kg/d for 10 days.

GROUP 2
IV switch therapy.
Ceftriaxon 50 mg/kg/d until cessation of fever followed by amoxicillin/clavulanic acid.

Outcomes

1. Cessation of fever (hours mean, SD)

Notes

Abstract only plus information from www.clinicaltrials.gov.
At time of publication, 88% of required population was enrolled

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

A ‐ Adequate

Neuhaus 2008

Methods

Prospective multicentre RCT.
Computer generated randomisation list, sealed envelopes.
No ITT.

Participants

INCLUSION CRITERIA
Number: 78 (group 1), 72 (group 2).
Gender (F/M): unknown.
Age: 6 months to 16 years.
Fever > 38°C, CRP > 10 mg/L, positive urine culture (catheter urine) and positive DMSA scintigraphy at beginning (signs of pyelonephritis).

EXCLUSION CRITERIA
Normal scintigraphy, sepsis, complex urinary abnormalities.

Interventions

GROUP 1
Oral therapy.
Ceftibuten 9 mg/kg/d PO for 14 days.

GROUP 2
IV switch therapy.
Ceftriaxone 50 mg/kg IV for 3 days followed by ceftibuten for 11 days.

Outcomes

1. Number of patients with renal scarring (DMSA) after 6 months.
2. Adverse events rate.

Notes

Of 365 children initially enrolled and randomised, 346 had an acute DMSA scan.
Children excluded because of normal DMSA scan (127).
Follow‐up scan and included in analysis (152).

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

A ‐ Adequate

Noorbakhsh 2004

Methods

Prospective RCT in a tertiary care centre.
Randomisation list kept with principal investigator.
No ITT.

Participants

INCLUSION CRITERIA
Number: 24 (group 1), 30 (group 2).
Gender (F/M): unknown.
Age: </= 10 years.
Fever, flank pain, pyuria and positive urine culture.

EXCLUSION CRITERIA
Severe allergy to study therapy, obstructive uropathy, renal abscess, immune‐compromising disease, acute hepatic failure, clinical signs of sepsis, requirement for dialysis.

Interventions

GROUP 1
IV switch therapy.
Ceftriaxone IV 50 mg/kg/d for 2 to 3 days, then cefixime 8 mg/kg/d for 8 to 12 days.

GROUP 2
IV therapy.
Amikacin 15 mg/kg/d or gentamicin 3 mg/kg/d with ampicillin 100 mg/kg/d for 7 to 10 days.

Outcomes

1. Combined clinical and microbiological cure rate at end of therapy.

Notes

Of 30/30 patients enrolled, only 24 (group 1) received switch therapy.
The other 6 were treated IV because of lack of cefixime. These patients were not added to analysis (personal communication of author)

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear

Puppo 1989

Methods

Prospective RCT.
Randomisation method: not stated.
ITT: unclear (not stated whether 100 patients were randomised, 18 excluded afterwards, or 100 patients assessed, 18 excluded and 82 randomised).

Participants

INCLUSION CRITERIA
Number: 18 (group 1), 20 (group 2).
Gender (F/total): 15/22 females in total study population.
Age: > 18 years.
Clinical symptoms of severe UTI/ pyelonephritis and positive urine culture (24/20 adults with mild UTI/cystitis, not included in review).

EXCLUSION CRITERIA
Hypersensitivity to drugs, pregnancy, breast feeding, severe liver or kidney disease. 78 (5% group 1, /75% group 2) had complicated pyelonephritis.

Interventions

GROUP 1
Oral therapy.
Norfloxacin 400 mg twice daily for 7 days.

GROUP 2
IM therapy.
Aztreonam 1 g IM twice daily for 7 days.

Outcomes

1. Bacteriological cure rate at end of treatment and after 4 week interval (n, %).
2. Other outcomes not differentiated in pyelonephritis and cystitis.

Notes

Of 100 enrolled, 18 patients were excluded before or after randomisation (unclear).
Only patients with pyelonephritis included in review (38), patients with cystitis (44) not included

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear

Regnier 1989

Methods

Prospective multicentre RCT.
Randomisation table in blocks of 4, stratification according to centre.
No ITT.

Participants

INCLUSION CRITERIA
Number: 47 (group 1), 48 (group 2).
Gender (F/total): unknown, but 4 times more females
Age: > 15 years.
Severe UTI defined as fever, bacteriuria, positive urine culture and pyuria or at least one clinical sign or 2 positive urine cultures.
Severity defined as either fever > 39°C, age > 65 years or pre‐existing nephro‐urological disease or positive haemoculture.

EXCLUSION CRITERIA
pregnancy, breast feeding, insufficient contraception, cephalosporin allergy, renal or hepatic failure, or other chronic disease, antibiotics within 48 hours.

Interventions

GROUP 1
IV switch therapy.
Ceftriaxone 2 g/d for 4 days IV followed by oral cefixime 200 mg twice daily for 11 days.

GROUP 2
Parenteral therapy.
IV ceftriaxone 2 g/d for 4 days followed by IM or IV ceftriaxone 1 g/d for 11 days.

Outcomes

1. Clinical cure rate at end of therapy.
2. Clinical and bacteriological cure rate at the end of treatment and after interval of 30 to 45 days.
3. Reinfection rate at end of treatment and after interval.
4. Relapse rate after interval.
5. Adverse events rate.

Notes

Of 97 patients enrolled, 2 patients of parenteral group were excluded from analysis because of negative urine culture at beginning.
No urine culture at the end of treatment in 11/12 patients (1/12 complete loss to follow‐up) and therefore exclusion from most of the outcomes.
8/6 patients lost to follow‐up after 30 to 45 days.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear

Sanchez 2002

Methods

Prospective RCT at a tertiary care centre.
Randomisation based on computer generated numbers.
No ITT.

Participants

INCLUSION CRITERIA
Number: 51 (group 1), 54 (group 2).
Gender (F/M): all women.
Age: 18 to 75 years.
Diagnosis of UTI defined as fever > 38°C, flank pain and pyuria.

EXCLUSION CRITERIA
Pregnancy, catheterisation, preceding antibiotic treatment, complicated UTI, sterile urine culture at beginning, hypersensitivity to cephalosporins.

Interventions

GROUP 1
Single shot IV/oral therapy.
Ceftriaxone 1 g IV, then cefixime 400 mg or other oral antibiotic according to results of urine culture for 10 days.

GROUP 2
IV switch therapy.
Ceftriaxone 1 g/d IV until results of urine culture then oral antibiotics for a total of 10 days.

Outcomes

1. Clinical cure rate under therapy (after 3 days).
2. Clinical cure rate at end of therapy (after 10 days).
3. Bacterial cure rate under therapy (after 3 days).
4. Duration of fever (days).
5. Duration of clinical symptoms (days).
6. Adverse events rate.

Notes

Of 144 patients enrolled with clinical symptoms of UTI, 51 (group 1) and 54 (group 2) had a positive urine culture (others were excluded after randomisation).

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear

Vilaichone 2001

Methods

Prospective RCT at a tertiary care centre.
Randomised in blocks of 4, method not stated.
ITT.

Participants

INCLUSION CRITERIA
Number: 18 (group 1), 18 (group 2).
Gender (F/total): 9/18 (group 1) 8/18 (group 2).
Age: 1 month to 15 years.
Fever, > 38°C or subnormal temperatures in small infants, pyuria and/or bacteriuria and a positive urine culture from MSU or bag and a positive 99mTc‐DMSA scan proving pyelonephritis.

EXCLUSION CRITERIA
History of previous UTI, anatomic abnormalities, neurogenic bladder, kidney failure, allergy to cephalosporin or penicillin, systemic antibiotics within 48 hours, chronic disease.

Interventions

GROUP 1
IV switch therapy.
Ceftriaxon IV 75 mg/kg/d until afebrile > 24 to 48 hours, followed by oral ceftibuten 9 mg/kg/d for 10 days.

GROUP 2
IV therapy.
Ceftriaxone IV 75 mg/kg/d for 10 days.

Outcomes

1. Bacteriological cure rate at end of therapy (day 14).
2. Clinical cure rate after interval of 6 months.
3. Bacteriological cure rate after interval of 6 months.
4. Reinfection rate after 6 months (n, %).
5. DMSA renal scan after 0.5 year.

Notes

Of 100 patients, 64 were excluded before randomisation because of recurrent UTI (9), anatomical abnormalities (5), chronic disease (2), failure to notify (4), normal DMSA scan at beginning (18), negative urine culture (26).
Hospitalisation rate cannot be compared because only mean (no SD) is given.
Adverse events rate only given for IV switch group.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear

UTI ‐ urinary tract infection

Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]

Study

Reason for exclusion

Abraham 1982

Not an RCT (retrospective cohort study).

Ahmetagic 2003

RCT.
Includes patients with sepsis from age 0 to 96 years. No separate data for patients with UTI. No clear inclusion criteria.

Angel 1990

RCT.
Unclear data presentation of 102 patients screened, 90 (45/45) were randomised into group 1(IV switch therapy) or group 2 (oral therapy). Three patients of group 1 and 10 patients of group 2 were excluded afterwards because of positive blood culture and subsequent IV therapy. Patients with a negative urine culture (5/90). Only 39 in group 1 and 33 in group 2 had a urine culture at the end of therapy.

Benador 2001

RCT.
Compares 2 switch therapies with different duration of IV antibiotics (3 days IV then 12 days PO versus 10 days IV then 5 days PO).

Buchi 1988

Not an RCT.

Bunnag 2003

Not an RCT.

Cherubin 1986

RCT.
Includes patients with complicated UTI and resistant organisms. Mild UTI (cystitis), only 28% of patients had fever at inclusion, only 28% are classified as having pyelonephritis.

Concia 2006

RCT.
No inclusion criteria, unclear data presentation. Compares switch therapy with IV therapy, but only 19/23 patients received switch therapy, 4 patients of switch therapy group received IV therapy only.

Cox 1987

RCT.
Includes only patients with nosocomially acquired UTI. Only 17% had E. coli infection, but in 31% Pseudomonas could be isolated. Also, most patients had a Foley catheter in place when becoming infected.

Cox 1989

RCT.
Includes only patients with complicated UTI.

Daly 1989

Not an RCT.

Esposito 1991

RCT.
Includes patients with mild to moderate UTI not further specified, probably rather lower than upper UTI (no clear inclusion criteria, no baseline characteristics table). All included patients had liver cirrhosis.

Fang 1991

RCT.
Compared oral therapy with ciprofloxacin and IV therapy with aminoglycosides in patients with complicated UTI (inclusion criteria: anatomic or functional abnormality of urinary tract).

Fass 1989

Stratified RCT.
Compares ceftazidime IV versus ciprofloxacin IV/PO in 72 patients, among those 31 patients with UTI. Many of the patients in the IV group were switched to an oral beta‐lactam. No randomisation within UTI strata (23 ceftazidime IV, 8 ciprofloxacin IV/PO).

Gangji 1989

RCT.
Randomised 89 patients with septicaemia and among those 33 patients with UTI. No separate outcome data for UTI.

Gaut 1989

RCT.
Only 5 with UTI. Patients with UTI were only included if infection was caused by P. aeruginosa or any other organism resistant to conventional antibiotics and was either complicated or severe. Typical UTI = exclusion to study.

Gelfand 1993

Not an RCT (sequential therapy group).

Giamarellou 1989

RCT.
Patients with UTI (28/103). Comparison between ceftazidime IV or IM and pefloxacin IV or PO or sequential, but results are not documented according to mode of application.

Harding 1993

RCT.
Compares oral ciprofloxacin versus standard parenteral therapy in patients with complicated UTI (inclusion criteria: complicated UTI, i.e. documented anatomical or functional abnormalities, presence of chronic catheter or recurrent episodes of UTI).

Kalager 1992

RCT.
Compares sequential therapy and IV therapy in RCT including patients with systemic infections, among those 51(?) patients with UTI. Data presentation unclear and contradictory, not possible to extract data for UTI only.

Kanellakopoulou 1990

Not an RCT.

Le Conte 2001

RCT.
Compares ciprofloxacin plus placebo vs ciprofloxacin plus tobramycin single shot. Ciprofloxacin was given IV in 15% and orally in 85% (in both arms).

Levtchenko 2001a

RCT.
Compares 2 switch therapies with different duration of IV antibiotics (3 days IV then 15 d PO versus 7 days IV then 14 days PO).

Lorian 1994

Not an RCT (retrospective cohort study).

Matilla 1982

RCT.
Compares two different sequential therapies: cephalexin versus cephradine, both initially as parenteral treatment and then as oral treatment.

Michaelis 1993

RCT.
Compares two different sequential therapies: lomefloxacin versus ciprofloxacin, both initially as parenteral treatment and then as oral treatment.

Nicolle 1991

RCT.
Compares oral or IV ofloxacin versus standard care in pneumonia, UTI and skin infection. Five patients with UTI, all randomised to ofloxacin, none randomised to standard care.

Paladino 1991

RCT.
Compares IV antibiotics versus IV switch therapy in serious infections. Randomisation was not infection‐specific, most patients had previous antibiotic treatment, 11 patients with UTI were randomised to IV therapy, 8 to switch therapy. UTI was secondary infection in 3 patients, 5 patients had complicated UTI, 5 patients had bacteraemia, a primary focus and UTI as secondary focus simultaneously. Antibiotic treatment before enrolment (51/103).

Peacock 1989

RCT.
Compares sequential ciprofloxacin (IV and oral) with ceftazidime (followed by oral antibiotic) in severe infections. Number receiving oral antibiotics: 63% in ciprofloxacin group and 55% in ceftazidime group. No separation of results according to application modes.

Raz 1988

RCT.
Compares IV switch therapy and IV therapy in patients with complicated UTI (inclusion criteria: complicated UTI without further definition). Enrolled were patients with prostatic obstruction, cancer, kidney stones.

Robson 1993

Not an RCT (pharmacokinetic study).

Safrin 1988

Not an RCT (retrospective cohort study).

Sannier 2000

Not an RCT (retrospective study).

Timmerman 1992

RCT.
Compares IV switch therapy and IV therapy in patients with complicated UTI defined as anatomical or functional abnormality of the urinary tract, urinary tract instrumentation and/or a serious illness.

Data and analyses

Open in table viewer
Comparison 1. Switch versus parenteral therapy

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Fever after 48 hours Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Switch versus parenteral therapy, Outcome 1 Fever after 48 hours.

Comparison 1 Switch versus parenteral therapy, Outcome 1 Fever after 48 hours.

2 Bacteriological cure under therapy Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Switch versus parenteral therapy, Outcome 2 Bacteriological cure under therapy.

Comparison 1 Switch versus parenteral therapy, Outcome 2 Bacteriological cure under therapy.

3 Clinical cure at end of treatment Show forest plot

2

137

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.01 [0.94, 1.10]

Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Switch versus parenteral therapy, Outcome 3 Clinical cure at end of treatment.

Comparison 1 Switch versus parenteral therapy, Outcome 3 Clinical cure at end of treatment.

4 Bacteriological cure at end of treatment Show forest plot

2

76

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.02 [0.92, 1.13]

Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Switch versus parenteral therapy, Outcome 4 Bacteriological cure at end of treatment.

Comparison 1 Switch versus parenteral therapy, Outcome 4 Bacteriological cure at end of treatment.

5 Clinical and bacteriological cure at end of treatment Show forest plot

4

294

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.99 [0.94, 1.04]

Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Switch versus parenteral therapy, Outcome 5 Clinical and bacteriological cure at end of treatment.

Comparison 1 Switch versus parenteral therapy, Outcome 5 Clinical and bacteriological cure at end of treatment.

6 Reinfection at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Switch versus parenteral therapy, Outcome 6 Reinfection at end of treatment.

Comparison 1 Switch versus parenteral therapy, Outcome 6 Reinfection at end of treatment.

7 Clinical and bacteriological cure after interval Show forest plot

3

219

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.99 [0.89, 1.11]

Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 Switch versus parenteral therapy, Outcome 7 Clinical and bacteriological cure after interval.

Comparison 1 Switch versus parenteral therapy, Outcome 7 Clinical and bacteriological cure after interval.

7.1 Paediatric studies

2

138

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.03 [0.96, 1.10]

7.2 Adult studies

1

81

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.92 [0.73, 1.16]

8 Relapse after interval Show forest plot

3

203

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

2.79 [0.30, 25.67]

Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 Switch versus parenteral therapy, Outcome 8 Relapse after interval.

Comparison 1 Switch versus parenteral therapy, Outcome 8 Relapse after interval.

9 Reinfection after interval Show forest plot

4

239

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.76 [0.30, 1.90]

Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1 Switch versus parenteral therapy, Outcome 9 Reinfection after interval.

Comparison 1 Switch versus parenteral therapy, Outcome 9 Reinfection after interval.

10 Renal scarring (DMSA scan) after 6 months Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 1.10

Comparison 1 Switch versus parenteral therapy, Outcome 10 Renal scarring (DMSA scan) after 6 months.

Comparison 1 Switch versus parenteral therapy, Outcome 10 Renal scarring (DMSA scan) after 6 months.

11 Adverse events Show forest plot

4

292

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.85 [0.19, 3.83]

Analysis 1.11

Comparison 1 Switch versus parenteral therapy, Outcome 11 Adverse events.

Comparison 1 Switch versus parenteral therapy, Outcome 11 Adverse events.

11.1 Pediatric studies

3

195

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.67 [0.30, 1.53]

11.2 Adult studies

1

97

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

12.24 [0.71, 211.37]

Open in table viewer
Comparison 2. Oral versus switch therapy

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Clinical and bacteriological cure under therapy Show forest plot

3

599

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.00 [0.98, 1.02]

Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 1 Clinical and bacteriological cure under therapy.

Comparison 2 Oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 1 Clinical and bacteriological cure under therapy.

2 Clinical and bacteriological cure at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 2 Clinical and bacteriological cure at end of treatment.

Comparison 2 Oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 2 Clinical and bacteriological cure at end of treatment.

3 Reinfection at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 3 Reinfection at end of treatment.

Comparison 2 Oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 3 Reinfection at end of treatment.

4 Relapse at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 Oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 4 Relapse at end of treatment.

Comparison 2 Oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 4 Relapse at end of treatment.

5 Clinical and bacteriological cure rate after interval Show forest plot

3

493

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.97 [0.93, 1.01]

Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2 Oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 5 Clinical and bacteriological cure rate after interval.

Comparison 2 Oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 5 Clinical and bacteriological cure rate after interval.

6 Reinfection after interval Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 2.6

Comparison 2 Oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 6 Reinfection after interval.

Comparison 2 Oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 6 Reinfection after interval.

6.1 Symptomatic superinfection

1

287

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.67 [0.27, 1.67]

6.2 Symptomatic and asymptomatic superinfection

2

341

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.64 [0.29, 1.42]

7 Relapse after interval Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 2.7

Comparison 2 Oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 7 Relapse after interval.

Comparison 2 Oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 7 Relapse after interval.

8 Renal scarring (DMSA scan) after 6 months Show forest plot

2

424

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.87 [0.35, 2.16]

Analysis 2.8

Comparison 2 Oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 8 Renal scarring (DMSA scan) after 6 months.

Comparison 2 Oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 8 Renal scarring (DMSA scan) after 6 months.

9 Mean time to cessation of fever (hours) Show forest plot

3

834

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.40 [‐2.94, 3.74]

Analysis 2.9

Comparison 2 Oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 9 Mean time to cessation of fever (hours).

Comparison 2 Oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 9 Mean time to cessation of fever (hours).

10 Adverse events Show forest plot

2

506

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.06, 15.02]

Analysis 2.10

Comparison 2 Oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 10 Adverse events.

Comparison 2 Oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 10 Adverse events.

Open in table viewer
Comparison 3. Oral versus parenteral therapy

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Bacteriological cure at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Oral versus parenteral therapy, Outcome 1 Bacteriological cure at end of treatment.

Comparison 3 Oral versus parenteral therapy, Outcome 1 Bacteriological cure at end of treatment.

2 Bacteriological cure after interval Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 Oral versus parenteral therapy, Outcome 2 Bacteriological cure after interval.

Comparison 3 Oral versus parenteral therapy, Outcome 2 Bacteriological cure after interval.

Open in table viewer
Comparison 4. Single shot/oral versus switch therapy

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Clinical cure under therapy Show forest plot

2

225

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.93 [0.86, 1.02]

Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 Single shot/oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 1 Clinical cure under therapy.

Comparison 4 Single shot/oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 1 Clinical cure under therapy.

2 Bacterial cure under therapy Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 4.2

Comparison 4 Single shot/oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 2 Bacterial cure under therapy.

Comparison 4 Single shot/oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 2 Bacterial cure under therapy.

3 Mean time to cessation of fever (days) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 4.3

Comparison 4 Single shot/oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 3 Mean time to cessation of fever (days).

Comparison 4 Single shot/oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 3 Mean time to cessation of fever (days).

4 Mean time of clinical symptoms (days) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 4.4

Comparison 4 Single shot/oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 4 Mean time of clinical symptoms (days).

Comparison 4 Single shot/oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 4 Mean time of clinical symptoms (days).

5 Clinical cure at end of therapy Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 4.5

Comparison 4 Single shot/oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 5 Clinical cure at end of therapy.

Comparison 4 Single shot/oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 5 Clinical cure at end of therapy.

6 Bacterial cure at end of therapy Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 4.6

Comparison 4 Single shot/oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 6 Bacterial cure at end of therapy.

Comparison 4 Single shot/oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 6 Bacterial cure at end of therapy.

7 Adverse events Show forest plot

2

225

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

4.00 [0.46, 34.75]

Analysis 4.7

Comparison 4 Single shot/oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 7 Adverse events.

Comparison 4 Single shot/oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 7 Adverse events.

Open in table viewer
Comparison 5. Single shot/oral versus oral therapy

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Clinical and bacteriological cure under therapy Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5 Single shot/oral versus oral therapy, Outcome 1 Clinical and bacteriological cure under therapy.

Comparison 5 Single shot/oral versus oral therapy, Outcome 1 Clinical and bacteriological cure under therapy.

2 Bacteriological cure under therapy Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 5.2

Comparison 5 Single shot/oral versus oral therapy, Outcome 2 Bacteriological cure under therapy.

Comparison 5 Single shot/oral versus oral therapy, Outcome 2 Bacteriological cure under therapy.

3 Reinfection or relapse after interval Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 5.3

Comparison 5 Single shot/oral versus oral therapy, Outcome 3 Reinfection or relapse after interval.

Comparison 5 Single shot/oral versus oral therapy, Outcome 3 Reinfection or relapse after interval.

4 Adverse events Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 5.4

Comparison 5 Single shot/oral versus oral therapy, Outcome 4 Adverse events.

Comparison 5 Single shot/oral versus oral therapy, Outcome 4 Adverse events.

Comparison 1 Switch versus parenteral therapy, Outcome 1 Fever after 48 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Switch versus parenteral therapy, Outcome 1 Fever after 48 hours.

Comparison 1 Switch versus parenteral therapy, Outcome 2 Bacteriological cure under therapy.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Switch versus parenteral therapy, Outcome 2 Bacteriological cure under therapy.

Comparison 1 Switch versus parenteral therapy, Outcome 3 Clinical cure at end of treatment.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Switch versus parenteral therapy, Outcome 3 Clinical cure at end of treatment.

Comparison 1 Switch versus parenteral therapy, Outcome 4 Bacteriological cure at end of treatment.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Switch versus parenteral therapy, Outcome 4 Bacteriological cure at end of treatment.

Comparison 1 Switch versus parenteral therapy, Outcome 5 Clinical and bacteriological cure at end of treatment.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Switch versus parenteral therapy, Outcome 5 Clinical and bacteriological cure at end of treatment.

Comparison 1 Switch versus parenteral therapy, Outcome 6 Reinfection at end of treatment.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Switch versus parenteral therapy, Outcome 6 Reinfection at end of treatment.

Comparison 1 Switch versus parenteral therapy, Outcome 7 Clinical and bacteriological cure after interval.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 Switch versus parenteral therapy, Outcome 7 Clinical and bacteriological cure after interval.

Comparison 1 Switch versus parenteral therapy, Outcome 8 Relapse after interval.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 Switch versus parenteral therapy, Outcome 8 Relapse after interval.

Comparison 1 Switch versus parenteral therapy, Outcome 9 Reinfection after interval.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1 Switch versus parenteral therapy, Outcome 9 Reinfection after interval.

Comparison 1 Switch versus parenteral therapy, Outcome 10 Renal scarring (DMSA scan) after 6 months.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.10

Comparison 1 Switch versus parenteral therapy, Outcome 10 Renal scarring (DMSA scan) after 6 months.

Comparison 1 Switch versus parenteral therapy, Outcome 11 Adverse events.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.11

Comparison 1 Switch versus parenteral therapy, Outcome 11 Adverse events.

Comparison 2 Oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 1 Clinical and bacteriological cure under therapy.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 1 Clinical and bacteriological cure under therapy.

Comparison 2 Oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 2 Clinical and bacteriological cure at end of treatment.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 2 Clinical and bacteriological cure at end of treatment.

Comparison 2 Oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 3 Reinfection at end of treatment.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 3 Reinfection at end of treatment.

Comparison 2 Oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 4 Relapse at end of treatment.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 Oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 4 Relapse at end of treatment.

Comparison 2 Oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 5 Clinical and bacteriological cure rate after interval.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2 Oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 5 Clinical and bacteriological cure rate after interval.

Comparison 2 Oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 6 Reinfection after interval.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.6

Comparison 2 Oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 6 Reinfection after interval.

Comparison 2 Oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 7 Relapse after interval.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.7

Comparison 2 Oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 7 Relapse after interval.

Comparison 2 Oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 8 Renal scarring (DMSA scan) after 6 months.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.8

Comparison 2 Oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 8 Renal scarring (DMSA scan) after 6 months.

Comparison 2 Oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 9 Mean time to cessation of fever (hours).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.9

Comparison 2 Oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 9 Mean time to cessation of fever (hours).

Comparison 2 Oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 10 Adverse events.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.10

Comparison 2 Oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 10 Adverse events.

Comparison 3 Oral versus parenteral therapy, Outcome 1 Bacteriological cure at end of treatment.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Oral versus parenteral therapy, Outcome 1 Bacteriological cure at end of treatment.

Comparison 3 Oral versus parenteral therapy, Outcome 2 Bacteriological cure after interval.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 Oral versus parenteral therapy, Outcome 2 Bacteriological cure after interval.

Comparison 4 Single shot/oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 1 Clinical cure under therapy.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 Single shot/oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 1 Clinical cure under therapy.

Comparison 4 Single shot/oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 2 Bacterial cure under therapy.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.2

Comparison 4 Single shot/oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 2 Bacterial cure under therapy.

Comparison 4 Single shot/oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 3 Mean time to cessation of fever (days).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.3

Comparison 4 Single shot/oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 3 Mean time to cessation of fever (days).

Comparison 4 Single shot/oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 4 Mean time of clinical symptoms (days).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.4

Comparison 4 Single shot/oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 4 Mean time of clinical symptoms (days).

Comparison 4 Single shot/oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 5 Clinical cure at end of therapy.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.5

Comparison 4 Single shot/oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 5 Clinical cure at end of therapy.

Comparison 4 Single shot/oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 6 Bacterial cure at end of therapy.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.6

Comparison 4 Single shot/oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 6 Bacterial cure at end of therapy.

Comparison 4 Single shot/oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 7 Adverse events.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.7

Comparison 4 Single shot/oral versus switch therapy, Outcome 7 Adverse events.

Comparison 5 Single shot/oral versus oral therapy, Outcome 1 Clinical and bacteriological cure under therapy.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5 Single shot/oral versus oral therapy, Outcome 1 Clinical and bacteriological cure under therapy.

Comparison 5 Single shot/oral versus oral therapy, Outcome 2 Bacteriological cure under therapy.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.2

Comparison 5 Single shot/oral versus oral therapy, Outcome 2 Bacteriological cure under therapy.

Comparison 5 Single shot/oral versus oral therapy, Outcome 3 Reinfection or relapse after interval.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.3

Comparison 5 Single shot/oral versus oral therapy, Outcome 3 Reinfection or relapse after interval.

Comparison 5 Single shot/oral versus oral therapy, Outcome 4 Adverse events.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.4

Comparison 5 Single shot/oral versus oral therapy, Outcome 4 Adverse events.

Table 1. Methodological quality of included studies

Study ID

Concealed allocation

Blinding patients

Blinding clinicians

Blinding outcomes

Intention‐to‐treat

Enrolled/evaluated

Dropouts

Baker 2001

Adequate

No

Yes

Yes

No

87/69

4/73 (5%)

Childs 1990

Adequate

No

No

Not stated

No

63/40

7/63 (11%)

Fischbach 1989

Unclear

No

No

Not stated

Not stated

?/20

0%

Francois 1997

Adequate

No

No

Not stated (blinded in case of ambiguity and resolution by third party)

No

147/128

Group 1: 7 (11%)
Group 2: 12 (18%)

Gok 2001

Unclear

No

No

Not stated

Not stated

?/54

Unclear

Hoberman 1999

Adequate

No

No

Yes

Yes

306/306‐272 (depending on outcome)

Group 1: 21 (14%) Group 2: 13 (8%)

Millar 1995

Adequate

No

No

Yes

Yes

120/110

Group 1: 3 (5%) Group 2: 7 (12%)

Mombelli 1999

Adequate

No

No

Yes

No

163/141

2/141 (1%)

Montini 2007

Adequate

No

No

Not stated

Not stated

387(=88% sample size)/387

0%

Neuhaus 2008

Adequate

No

No

Yes

No

365/152

86/365 (24%

Noorbakhsh 2004

Unclear

No

No

Yes

No

60/54

0%

Puppo 1989

Unclear

No

No

Not stated

No (Unclear)

100/82 (number included in this review: 38)

0%

Regnier 1989

Unclear

No

No

Not stated

No

97/95 (81 after interval)

Group 1: 6 (12.5%) Group 2: 8 (17%)

Sanchez 2002

Unclear

No

No

Not stated

No

144/105

0%

Vilaichone 2001

Unclear

No

No

Not stated

Yes

36/36

0%

Figuras y tablas -
Table 1. Methodological quality of included studies
Comparison 1. Switch versus parenteral therapy

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Fever after 48 hours Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2 Bacteriological cure under therapy Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3 Clinical cure at end of treatment Show forest plot

2

137

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.01 [0.94, 1.10]

4 Bacteriological cure at end of treatment Show forest plot

2

76

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.02 [0.92, 1.13]

5 Clinical and bacteriological cure at end of treatment Show forest plot

4

294

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.99 [0.94, 1.04]

6 Reinfection at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

7 Clinical and bacteriological cure after interval Show forest plot

3

219

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.99 [0.89, 1.11]

7.1 Paediatric studies

2

138

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.03 [0.96, 1.10]

7.2 Adult studies

1

81

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.92 [0.73, 1.16]

8 Relapse after interval Show forest plot

3

203

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

2.79 [0.30, 25.67]

9 Reinfection after interval Show forest plot

4

239

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.76 [0.30, 1.90]

10 Renal scarring (DMSA scan) after 6 months Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

11 Adverse events Show forest plot

4

292

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.85 [0.19, 3.83]

11.1 Pediatric studies

3

195

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.67 [0.30, 1.53]

11.2 Adult studies

1

97

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

12.24 [0.71, 211.37]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Switch versus parenteral therapy
Comparison 2. Oral versus switch therapy

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Clinical and bacteriological cure under therapy Show forest plot

3

599

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.00 [0.98, 1.02]

2 Clinical and bacteriological cure at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3 Reinfection at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4 Relapse at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

5 Clinical and bacteriological cure rate after interval Show forest plot

3

493

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.97 [0.93, 1.01]

6 Reinfection after interval Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

6.1 Symptomatic superinfection

1

287

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.67 [0.27, 1.67]

6.2 Symptomatic and asymptomatic superinfection

2

341

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.64 [0.29, 1.42]

7 Relapse after interval Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

8 Renal scarring (DMSA scan) after 6 months Show forest plot

2

424

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.87 [0.35, 2.16]

9 Mean time to cessation of fever (hours) Show forest plot

3

834

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.40 [‐2.94, 3.74]

10 Adverse events Show forest plot

2

506

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.06, 15.02]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. Oral versus switch therapy
Comparison 3. Oral versus parenteral therapy

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Bacteriological cure at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2 Bacteriological cure after interval Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 3. Oral versus parenteral therapy
Comparison 4. Single shot/oral versus switch therapy

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Clinical cure under therapy Show forest plot

2

225

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.93 [0.86, 1.02]

2 Bacterial cure under therapy Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3 Mean time to cessation of fever (days) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4 Mean time of clinical symptoms (days) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

5 Clinical cure at end of therapy Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

6 Bacterial cure at end of therapy Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

7 Adverse events Show forest plot

2

225

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

4.00 [0.46, 34.75]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 4. Single shot/oral versus switch therapy
Comparison 5. Single shot/oral versus oral therapy

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Clinical and bacteriological cure under therapy Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2 Bacteriological cure under therapy Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3 Reinfection or relapse after interval Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4 Adverse events Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 5. Single shot/oral versus oral therapy