Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

original image
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

Comparison 1 Atypical versus non‐aytpical, Outcome 1 Mortality per antibiotic (ABX) treatment.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Atypical versus non‐aytpical, Outcome 1 Mortality per antibiotic (ABX) treatment.

Comparison 1 Atypical versus non‐aytpical, Outcome 2 Mortality per age.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Atypical versus non‐aytpical, Outcome 2 Mortality per age.

Comparison 1 Atypical versus non‐aytpical, Outcome 3 Mortality ‐ per geographical area.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Atypical versus non‐aytpical, Outcome 3 Mortality ‐ per geographical area.

Comparison 1 Atypical versus non‐aytpical, Outcome 4 Mortality per allocation generation.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Atypical versus non‐aytpical, Outcome 4 Mortality per allocation generation.

Comparison 1 Atypical versus non‐aytpical, Outcome 5 Mortality per allocation concealment.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Atypical versus non‐aytpical, Outcome 5 Mortality per allocation concealment.

Comparison 1 Atypical versus non‐aytpical, Outcome 6 Mortality per blinding.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Atypical versus non‐aytpical, Outcome 6 Mortality per blinding.

Comparison 1 Atypical versus non‐aytpical, Outcome 7 Mortality ‐ ITT analysis.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 Atypical versus non‐aytpical, Outcome 7 Mortality ‐ ITT analysis.

Comparison 1 Atypical versus non‐aytpical, Outcome 8 Clinical failure per antibiotic (ABx) treatment.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 Atypical versus non‐aytpical, Outcome 8 Clinical failure per antibiotic (ABx) treatment.

Comparison 1 Atypical versus non‐aytpical, Outcome 9 Clinical failure per age.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1 Atypical versus non‐aytpical, Outcome 9 Clinical failure per age.

Comparison 1 Atypical versus non‐aytpical, Outcome 10 Clinical failure per geographical area.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.10

Comparison 1 Atypical versus non‐aytpical, Outcome 10 Clinical failure per geographical area.

Comparison 1 Atypical versus non‐aytpical, Outcome 11 Clinical failure per allocation generation.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.11

Comparison 1 Atypical versus non‐aytpical, Outcome 11 Clinical failure per allocation generation.

Comparison 1 Atypical versus non‐aytpical, Outcome 12 Clinical failure per allocation concealment.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.12

Comparison 1 Atypical versus non‐aytpical, Outcome 12 Clinical failure per allocation concealment.

Comparison 1 Atypical versus non‐aytpical, Outcome 13 Clinical failure per blinding.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.13

Comparison 1 Atypical versus non‐aytpical, Outcome 13 Clinical failure per blinding.

Comparison 1 Atypical versus non‐aytpical, Outcome 14 Clinical failure ‐ ITT analysis.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.14

Comparison 1 Atypical versus non‐aytpical, Outcome 14 Clinical failure ‐ ITT analysis.

Comparison 1 Atypical versus non‐aytpical, Outcome 15 Clinical failure ‐ pneumococcal pneumonia.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.15

Comparison 1 Atypical versus non‐aytpical, Outcome 15 Clinical failure ‐ pneumococcal pneumonia.

Comparison 1 Atypical versus non‐aytpical, Outcome 16 Clinical failure ‐ atypical pathogens.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.16

Comparison 1 Atypical versus non‐aytpical, Outcome 16 Clinical failure ‐ atypical pathogens.

Comparison 1 Atypical versus non‐aytpical, Outcome 17 Clinical failure ‐ Legionella pneumophilae.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.17

Comparison 1 Atypical versus non‐aytpical, Outcome 17 Clinical failure ‐ Legionella pneumophilae.

Comparison 1 Atypical versus non‐aytpical, Outcome 18 Clinical failure per sponsorship.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.18

Comparison 1 Atypical versus non‐aytpical, Outcome 18 Clinical failure per sponsorship.

Comparison 1 Atypical versus non‐aytpical, Outcome 19 Bacteriological failure.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.19

Comparison 1 Atypical versus non‐aytpical, Outcome 19 Bacteriological failure.

Comparison 1 Atypical versus non‐aytpical, Outcome 20 Bacteriological failure per allocation generation.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.20

Comparison 1 Atypical versus non‐aytpical, Outcome 20 Bacteriological failure per allocation generation.

Comparison 1 Atypical versus non‐aytpical, Outcome 21 Adverse events ‐ total.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.21

Comparison 1 Atypical versus non‐aytpical, Outcome 21 Adverse events ‐ total.

Comparison 1 Atypical versus non‐aytpical, Outcome 22 Adverse events ‐ gastrointestinal events.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.22

Comparison 1 Atypical versus non‐aytpical, Outcome 22 Adverse events ‐ gastrointestinal events.

Comparison 1 Atypical versus non‐aytpical, Outcome 23 Adverse events ‐ requiring discontinuation of treatment.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.23

Comparison 1 Atypical versus non‐aytpical, Outcome 23 Adverse events ‐ requiring discontinuation of treatment.

Comparison 1. Atypical versus non‐aytpical

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Mortality per antibiotic (ABX) treatment Show forest plot

25

5444

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.14 [0.84, 1.55]

1.1 Quinolone (atypical arm)

19

3698

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.98 [0.69, 1.39]

1.2 Macrolide (atypical arm)

4

540

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.25 [0.52, 3.01]

1.3 Combined quinolone and macrolide (atypical arm)

1

808

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.29 [0.81, 6.44]

1.4 Pristinamycine (atypical arm)

1

398

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.98 [0.37, 10.69]

2 Mortality per age Show forest plot

25

5444

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.14 [0.84, 1.55]

2.1 Mean age under 65 years old

15

3820

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.21 [0.75, 1.94]

2.2 Mean age over 65 years old

8

1439

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.10 [0.72, 1.69]

2.3 Data unavailable

2

185

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.0 [0.34, 2.93]

3 Mortality ‐ per geographical area Show forest plot

25

5444

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.14 [0.84, 1.55]

3.1 Europe

14

3209

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.22 [0.79, 1.89]

3.2 North America

3

232

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.42 [0.52, 3.86]

3.3 Other

8

2003

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.99 [0.62, 1.60]

4 Mortality per allocation generation Show forest plot

25

5444

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.14 [0.84, 1.55]

4.1 A

10

1953

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.07 [0.68, 1.68]

4.2 B

15

3491

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.20 [0.79, 1.81]

4.3 C

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5 Mortality per allocation concealment Show forest plot

25

5444

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.14 [0.84, 1.55]

5.1 A

7

1590

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.05 [0.66, 1.65]

5.2 B

18

3854

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.22 [0.81, 1.83]

5.3 C

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6 Mortality per blinding Show forest plot

25

5444

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.14 [0.84, 1.55]

6.1 Non‐blinded

16

2290

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.04 [0.72, 1.50]

6.2 Single‐blind

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6.3 Double or triple‐blind

9

3154

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.37 [0.79, 2.38]

7 Mortality ‐ ITT analysis Show forest plot

12

2143

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.23 [0.70, 2.15]

7.1 ITT (type 1)

12

2143

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.23 [0.70, 2.15]

8 Clinical failure per antibiotic (ABx) treatment Show forest plot

28

5419

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.93 [0.84, 1.04]

8.1 Quinolone (atypical arm)

21

3704

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.89 [0.79, 1.02]

8.2 Macrolide (atypical arm)

5

536

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.11 [0.76, 1.62]

8.3 Combined quinolone and macrolide (atypical arm)

1

808

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.93 [0.75, 1.17]

8.4 Pristinamycine (atypical arm)

1

371

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.18 [0.77, 1.81]

9 Clinical failure per age Show forest plot

28

5419

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.93 [0.84, 1.04]

9.1 Mean age under 65 years old

15

3554

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.93 [0.81, 1.06]

9.2 Mean age over 65 years old

8

1439

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.75, 1.10]

9.3 Data unavailable

5

426

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.07 [0.77, 1.50]

10 Clinical failure per geographical area Show forest plot

28

5419

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.93 [0.84, 1.04]

10.1 Europe

15

3084

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.85 [0.74, 0.98]

10.2 North America

3

232

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.93 [0.59, 1.45]

10.3 Other

10

2103

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.06 [0.90, 1.24]

11 Clinical failure per allocation generation Show forest plot

28

5419

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.93 [0.84, 1.04]

11.1 A

10

1878

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.99 [0.82, 1.19]

11.2 B

17

3467

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.90 [0.79, 1.02]

11.3 C

1

74

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

7.29 [0.41, 130.64]

12 Clinical failure per allocation concealment Show forest plot

28

5419

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.93 [0.84, 1.04]

12.1 A

7

1583

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.99 [0.82, 1.19]

12.2 B

20

3762

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.90 [0.80, 1.02]

12.3 C

1

74

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

7.29 [0.41, 130.64]

13 Clinical failure per blinding Show forest plot

28

5419

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.93 [0.84, 1.04]

13.1 Non‐blinded

18

2415

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.90 [0.77, 1.05]

13.2 Single‐blind

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

13.3 Double or triple‐blind

10

3004

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.97 [0.84, 1.11]

14 Clinical failure ‐ ITT analysis Show forest plot

28

5682

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.93 [0.85, 1.02]

14.1 ITT studies (type 1)

7

1232

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.92 [0.76, 1.12]

14.2 Dropouts assumed as failure (type 2)

15

3849

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.84, 1.05]

14.3 Non‐ITT, dropouts cannot be calculated (type 3)

6

601

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.85 [0.63, 1.15]

15 Clinical failure ‐ pneumococcal pneumonia Show forest plot

18

1021

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.22 [0.88, 1.70]

16 Clinical failure ‐ atypical pathogens Show forest plot

4

158

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.52 [0.24, 1.10]

17 Clinical failure ‐ Legionella pneumophilae Show forest plot

5

43

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.17 [0.05, 0.63]

18 Clinical failure per sponsorship Show forest plot

28

5419

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.93 [0.84, 1.04]

18.1 Sponsored trials

21

4540

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.97 [0.86, 1.08]

18.2 Non‐sponsored trials

3

288

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.02 [0.64, 1.62]

18.3 Unclear sponsorship

4

591

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.67 [0.49, 0.93]

19 Bacteriological failure Show forest plot

21

2310

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.80 [0.65, 0.98]

19.1 Overall

21

2310

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.80 [0.65, 0.98]

20 Bacteriological failure per allocation generation Show forest plot

21

2310

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.80 [0.65, 0.98]

20.1 A

8

708

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.90 [0.61, 1.32]

20.2 B

13

1602

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.76 [0.59, 0.96]

21 Adverse events ‐ total Show forest plot

24

4918

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.02 [0.93, 1.13]

22 Adverse events ‐ gastrointestinal events Show forest plot

16

4129

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.70 [0.53, 0.92]

23 Adverse events ‐ requiring discontinuation of treatment Show forest plot

12

3806

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.01 [0.72, 1.41]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Atypical versus non‐aytpical