Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Antibiotici za liječenje upale dojke (mastitis) u dojilja

Contraer todo Desplegar todo

Abstract

disponible en

Background

Mastitis can be caused by ineffective positioning of the baby at the breast or restricted feeding. Infective mastitis is commonly caused by Staphylococcus aureus. The prevalence of mastitis in breastfeeding women may reach 33%. Effective milk removal, pain medication and antibiotic therapy have been the mainstays of treatment.

Objectives

This review aims to examine the effectiveness of antibiotic therapies in relieving symptoms for breastfeeding women with mastitis with or without laboratory investigation.

Search methods

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 September 2012), contacted investigators and other content experts known to us for unpublished trials and scanned the reference lists of retrieved articles.

Selection criteria

We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi‐RCTs comparing the effectiveness of various types of antibiotic therapies or antibiotic therapy versus alternative therapies for the treatment of mastitis.

Data collection and analysis

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. When in dispute, we consulted a third author.

Main results

Two trials met the inclusion criteria. One small trial (n = 25) compared amoxicillin with cephradine and found no significant difference between the two antibiotics in terms of symptom relief and abscess formation. Another, older study compared breast emptying alone as 'supportive therapy' versus antibiotic therapy plus supportive therapy, and no therapy. The findings of the latter study suggested faster clearance of symptoms for women using antibiotics, although the study design was problematic.

Authors' conclusions

There is insufficient evidence to confirm or refute the effectiveness of antibiotic therapy for the treatment of lactational mastitis. There is an urgent need to conduct high‐quality, double‐blinded RCTs to determine whether antibiotics should be used in this common postpartum condition.

PICO

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

El uso y la enseñanza del modelo PICO están muy extendidos en el ámbito de la atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia para formular preguntas y estrategias de búsqueda y para caracterizar estudios o metanálisis clínicos. PICO son las siglas en inglés de cuatro posibles componentes de una pregunta de investigación: paciente, población o problema; intervención; comparación; desenlace (outcome).

Para saber más sobre el uso del modelo PICO, puede consultar el Manual Cochrane.

Laički sažetak

Antibiotici za liječenje upale dojke (mastitis) u dojilja

Upala dojke ili mastitis može biti infektivna ili neinfektivna. Infektivni mastitis je jedan od najčešćih infekcija kod dojilja. Ovo stanje (infektivno ili neinfektivno) varira u intenzitetu, od blagih simptoma s lokalnom upalom, crvenilom, toplinom i boli u zahvaćenoj dojci do ozbiljnijih simptoma uključujući vrućicu, apsces, sepsa, koje mogu dovesti do hospitalizacije. Oporavak može potrajati i može biti popraćen značajnim neugodnostima za majku i dijete. Mastitis se obično javlja tijekom prva tri mjeseca od poroda i dovodi do toga da majka mora provesti jedan dan u krevetu, te su joj jedno vrijeme sposobnosti ograničene. Mastitis je povezan sa smanjenim izlučivanjem mlijeka, smanjenim stvaranjem mlijeka i poteškoćama u zbrinjavanju djeteta. To opterećenje za majke, te troškovi liječenja, potencijalni negativni utjecaj na nastavak dojenja, i opasnost potencijalnih komplikacija poput sepse, čini mastitis ozbiljnim stanjem koji zahtjeva ranu dijagnozu i učinkovitu terapiju. Ovaj Cochrane sustavni pregled je uključio dva istraživanja i 125 žena. Jedna studija je uspoređivala dva različita antibiotika, i nije pronađena razlika u antibioticima u odnosu na ublaženje simptoma. Druga studija je usporedila nikakvu terapiju, pražnjenje dojke i antibiotike s pražnjenjem dojki te je uočeno brže povlačenje simptoma s antibioticima. Ima jako malo dokaza o učinkovitosti antibiotske terapije, i potrebno je više istraživanja na ovu temu.

Authors' conclusions

Implications for practice

There is little evidence from the RCTs currently available to evaluate the effect of antibiotic therapy on mastitis. The included trials failed to meet some of the criteria for methodological quality, and the outcome measures used were too varied for comparisons to be made between studies.

Implications for research

There is an urgent need for high‐quality, large randomised placebo‐controlled trials. Future research should be designed so as to have adequate power (sample size), adequate allocation concealment, blinding of outcome assessors, and clear description of follow‐up, to allow appropriate comparisons between various antibiotic therapies or placebo groups, or both. Primary outcomes of this review, including symptom improvement reported by women or found by clinical assessment, the effect of continued breastfeeding versus no breastfeeding and the result of treating the infective mastitis based on laboratory investigation, should be further investigated. Secondary outcomes such as neonatal complications, hospitalisation, cost of treatment and adverse reactions following antibiotic therapy, should also be considered. Each and every one of these variables are important in terms of maternal and child health. We recommend a comprehensive RCT to investigate all of the above mentioned variables.

  1. Symptom improvement reported by women.

  2. Symptom improvement by clinical assessment.

  3. Continued breastfeeding.

  4. Resolution of infection as confirmed by laboratory test.

Background

Description of the condition

Mastitis is an inflammatory condition of the breast, usually associated with lactation (WHO 2000). Hence, it is also known as lactational mastitis (Hughes 1989) or puerperal mastitis (Editorial 1976). An estimated 2% to 33% of breastfeeding women develop lactational mastitis (Buescher 2001; Fetherston 1998; Foxman 2002; Jonsson 1994; Kaufmann 1991; Kinlay 1998; Marshall 1975; Riordan 1990; Vogel 1999). Population‐based studies in Australia reported that 15% to 20% of women during the first six months after delivery were affected, while a cohort study of American women reported that 10% of women experienced mastitis during the three months following the birth. Mastitis may recur: a New Zealand study of 350 lactating mothers showed a 8.5% recurrence rate.

The primary cause of mastitis is milk stasis (Hughes 1989), which may or may not be associated with infection. Mastitis can be caused by ineffective positioning of the baby at the breast, limited feeding (in cases where the mother is introducing formula feeding), or restricted feeding, all of which may result in milk stasis and mastitis. In infective mastitis, Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus albus are the commonest organisms found on laboratory investigation (Novy 1984; Riordan 1990). Escherichia coli (Lawrence 1999) and streptococci are found less frequently (Novy 1984). Delayed, inappropriate or inadequate treatment may result in unnecessary discontinuation of breastfeeding, breast tissue damage, recurrence, and substantial cost (Evans 1995).

Clinical symptoms of mastitis include unilateral breast pain, redness (erythema) and swelling, and may be associated with flu‐like symptoms (fever, chills and aches). Unilateral erythema, oedema and tenderness of the affected breast are usually present on examination. In contrast, engorgement of the breast is normally bilateral and uncomfortable rather than acutely painful; and in cases of breast abscess, a fluctuating, tender and hard breast mass is found with overlying erythema (Bedinghaus 1997; Hager 1992; Ogle 1988). Milk leucocyte count, bacteria colony count and culture may be useful investigations to differentiate infective from non‐infective mastitis (Thomsen 1984).

Description of the intervention

The principles of treating mastitis include supportive counselling and supportive therapy (bed rest, increased fluids), effective milk removal (by encouraging the continuation of breastfeeding and assessing how the baby is feeding; helping the mother to adjust positioning and attachment if necessary; and milk expression), symptomatic treatment (pain medication, use of anti‐inflammatory agents), antibiotic therapy (Walker 1999), probiotic therapy (Jimenez 2008) and other agents such as nisin (Fernandez 2008). Although efficient milk removal is the mainstay of treatment, antibiotics are usually prescribed to cover possible bacterial infections. These include penicillin, dicloxacillin and cephalosporins (Hager 1992; Marchant 2002) for staphylococcal and streptococcal infections; for gram‐negative organisms, cephalexin or amoxicillin may be appropriate (Olsen 1990).

The use of antibiotics in the treatment of mastitis varies worldwide, and researchers have been unable to reach a consensus on whether to prescribe antibiotics for women with lactational mastitis. Osterman 2000 underscored the benefit of prescribing both antibiotic therapy and supportive treatment in the presence of infective agents. They prescribed antibiotics after bacterial cultivation for 61% of participants in a cohort of lactational women with mastitis. The authors argued that since breast milk potentially contained pathogenic bacteria, the majority of the mothers should be treated with antibiotics. However, Kvist 2004 only treated 9% of breast inflammation with antibiotics. A study in Western Australia treated 85% of participants with inflammatory breast symptoms with antibiotics (Kvist 2005).

Matheson 1988 concluded that phenoxymethylpenicillin failed to stop abscess formation in 20% of mothers suffering from mastitis and that the majority of them recovered without antibiotics. Amir 2004a stated that low incidence of abscess formation (0.1% in their study) raised the question as to whether antibiotic therapy is appropriate for all mothers with symptoms of breast inflammation. They reported that only 2.9% (95% confidence interval 1.0 to 6.7) of women who took antibiotics for mastitis developed abscesses.

There has also been argument about the type of antibiotic chosen for breastfeeding women suffering from mastitis. Practice relating to the choice of antibiotic therapy has varied widely. An audit of the management of mastitis in the emergency department of Melbourne Hospital, Australia, showed that the majority of women with mastitis received flucloxacillin (91 women out of 111), a beta‐lactamase stable penicillin closely related to cloxacillin, as recommended by Australian Antibiotic Guideline (1996) (Amir 2004b). Amir reported that, due to adverse hepatic events, dicloxacillin should replace flucloxacillin (Amir 2004b). A prospective study (n = 840) conducted in the US between 1994 and1998 reported that 86% of women with mastitis received antibiotics, most of whom were on cephalexin (46%). The rest received amoxicillin (7%), ampicillin (7%) and amdinocillin clavulanate (7%). No cultures were performed because of cost restrictions (Foxman 2002). Another recent publication (Eglash 2006) reported a chart review of 64 women with lactational mastitis presenting to a lactation specialist between 1997 and 2002; these women received routine antibiotic therapy at the time inclusive of cephalexin, dicloxacillin, erythromycin, amoxicillin and clindamycin. The choice of antibiotics was based on the mother's and her baby's records of allergies and intolerances; mother's preference regarding the frequency of antibiotic administration; bacterial culture and sensitivities, and medication cost.

Why it is important to do this review

There is little consensus on who should be prescribed antibiotics, the most appropriate antibiotic to use, the best time to begin treatment and how long the treatment should continue. Most studies have focused on the effectiveness of emptying the breast and the timing of treatment, rather than on the type of antibiotics used (Crepinsek 2010; Devereux 1970; Kinlay 1998; Thomsen 1984). Use of laboratory investigation before antibiotic therapy is not consistent, and type of antibiotic chosen depends on physician choice rather than scientific proof. There is also little information on the cost‐effectiveness of different therapies.

Objectives

The objective of this review is to examine the effectiveness of antibiotic therapies in relieving symptoms for breastfeeding women who have mastitis.

Methods

Criteria for considering studies for this review

Types of studies

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi‐RCTs.

Types of participants

Lactating women who were diagnosed with mastitis, with or without laboratory investigations. We have excluded breast engorgement and breast abscess from this review.

Types of interventions

Intervention

Antibiotic therapy (various routes of administration, dosages, durations or timing of administration).

Control

Placebo, no treatment, other supportive treatments such as breast emptying or another antibiotic of a different class.

Types of outcome measures

Primary outcomes

  1. Symptom improvement reported by women

  2. Symptom improvement by clinical assessment

  3. Continued breastfeeding

  4. Resolution of infection as confirmed by laboratory test

Secondary outcomes

  1. Adverse drug reactions following antibiotic therapy

  2. Neonatal complications (e.g. neonatal colitis)

  3. Hospitalisation

  4. Costs

Search methods for identification of studies

Electronic searches

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group’s Trials Register by contacting the Trials Search Co‐ordinator (30 September 2012). 

The Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group’s Trials Register is maintained by the Trials Search Co‐ordinator and contains trials identified from: 

  1. monthly searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL);

  2. weekly searches of MEDLINE;

  3. weekly searches of EMBASE;

  4. handsearches of 30 journals and the proceedings of major conferences;

  5. weekly current awareness alerts for a further 44 journals plus monthly BioMed Central email alerts.

Details of the search strategies for CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE, the list of handsearched journals and conference proceedings, and the list of journals reviewed via the current awareness service can be found in the ‘Specialized Register’ section within the editorial information about the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group

Trials identified through the searching activities described above are each assigned to a review topic (or topics). The Trials Search Co‐ordinator searches the register for each review using the topic list rather than keywords. 

For details of additional searching carried out in the initial version of the review, see:Appendix 1.

Searching other resources

We contacted investigators (named in the retrieved articles) and other content experts known to us for unpublished trials. In addition, we looked for relevant trials in the references of the retrieved articles.

We did not apply any language restrictions.

Data collection and analysis

For methods used in the previous version of this review, see Appendix 3.

For this update, two review authors independently assessed for inclusion the two reports that were identified as a result of the updated search. We did not include either. If we identify new trials for inclusion in future updates of this review, we will use the methods described in Appendix 4.

Results

Description of studies

Two studies met the pre‐stated inclusion criteria in this review. One study had two treatment arms (amoxicillin versus cephradine) for the treatment of mastitis (Hager 1996). Another study compared antibiotic therapy versus no therapy and/or non‐pharmacological therapy (breast emptying) and the unit of analysis was the breast rather than the woman (Thomsen 1984).

Results of the search

In the initial version of the review, we identified 11 references (10 through the database search, and one through handsearching) (Amir 2004b). We reviewed titles and inspected abstracts. We excluded seven studies at initial screening for one or more of the following reasons: not related to mastitis, not a RCT, intervention of interest was not used or no relevant outcome was reported. We considered four studies potentially eligible for inclusion, but, after inspection of the full paper, excluded two of them. We have provided the reasons for exclusion in the Characteristics of excluded studies table.

Following an updated search in March 2010, we excluded a further two reports (Fernandez 2008; Jimenez 2008).

Following an updated search in September 2012, we excluded one report (Arroyo 2010) and one is awaiting translation from Chinese (Zhou 2009), see Characteristics of studies awaiting classification.

Included studies

Participants

Hager 1996 included 13 participants in the amoxicillin group and 12 in the cephradine group. Thomsen 1984 included 55 'cases' (individual breasts) in each of three arms (antibiotic plus breast emptying, breast emptying alone and no treatment). We have assumed that the number of women included in the analysis was approximately 100, although the actual number of women suffering from infective mastitis is not provided in the paper. (The paper described findings for women with both infective and non‐infective mastitis (n = 213). The total number of affected breasts was 339, so overall, approximately 60% of the women had both breasts affected. The number of infected breasts was 165 (55 in each of three treatment groups); assuming that the same proportions of women with infective versus non‐infective mastitis had both breasts affected, this would mean that approximately 100 women had infective mastitis and are included in the analysis in this review.)

Participants included in these trials were lactating mothers with symptoms of mastitis such as persistent tenderness of breast, swelling, redness, decreased milk secretion, fever or breast discomfort. Leucocyte count was also used in Thomsen 1984 as an inclusion criterion for treatment.

Intervention

Hager 1996 did not include any placebo or non‐treatment control group. The treatment regimens compared in this trial were oral amoxicillin, 500 mg every eight hours for seven days versus oral cephradine, 500 mg every eight hours for seven days. Participants in both groups were advised to continue breastfeeding and to apply warm, moist compresses every four to six hours (Hager 1996). Thomsen 1984 included two control groups, one where women received no treatment and a second where there was breast emptying. The treatment group in this study received the following antibiotics: penicillin 500,000 IU three per day for six days, oral ampicillin 500 mg, four per day for six days and erythromycin 500 mg twice per day for six days (Thomsen 1984).

Outcomes

In both included studies, resolution of symptoms (fever, erythema and tenderness) was the main outcome measure. Thomsen 1984 reported on continuation of normal lactation in a follow‐up visit two weeks after treatment. Both studies measured several negative outcomes, including persistence of symptoms, impaired milk secretion and recurrence of infection. Duration of follow‐up was 30 days for Hager 1996 and 14 days for Thomsen 1984.

Excluded studies

We excluded seven studies at initial screening for one or more of the following reasons: not related to mastitis, not a RCT, intervention of interest was not used or no relevant outcome was reported. We considered four studies potentially eligible for inclusion, but, after inspection of the full paper, excluded two of them.

Following updated searches in March 2010, and September 2012, we excluded a further three reports (Arroyo 2010; Fernandez 2008; Jimenez 2008). One study report is awaiting classification (Zhou 2009) as it needs to be translated.

We have provided the reasons for exclusion in the Characteristics of excluded studies table.

Risk of bias in included studies

SeeCharacteristics of included studies table.

Allocation

Both included studies were RCTs. However, only one of the studies adequately described the method of allocation concealment. Generation of randomisation sequence was not reported in either study, but one study reported concealment of allocation using pre‐sealed opaque envelopes (Hager 1996).

Blinding

Investigators were blinded in Hager 1996 and the method of blinding was considered adequate The other study did not describe the method of blinding (Thomsen 1984).

Incomplete outcome data

The assessment of pre‐determined variables in each study was based primarily on follow‐up. There was no reported loss to follow‐up in either of these studies.

Selective reporting

All expected outcomes were reported in one study (Hager 1996). In the other study, it was unclear whether or not outcomes had been selectively reported (Thomsen 1984).

Other potential sources of bias

Baseline characteristics were balanced in one study (Hager 1996), and in the other study it was not possible to tell whether other sources of bias were present (Thomsen 1984).

Effects of interventions

As the studies identified were not sufficiently similar and not of sufficient quality, we did not do a meta‐analysis and have therefore presented data, and discussed results, separately for the two included studies. In future updates of the review, as new studies emerge, it may be possible to add further comparisons and, where appropriate, combine findings in a meta‐analysis.

Primary outcomes

Proportion of participants with resolution of symptoms or improvement

Symptom improvement reported by women (outcome number 1) was not measured in either of the included studies. Both studies included findings relating to the second primary outcome (symptom improvement assessed by clinicians). However, comparison between the two studies was impossible since one was comparing antibiotic therapy with breast emptying versus breast emptying or no treatment, while the other was comparing two different types of antibiotic therapy.

One study assessed symptom improvement assessed by clinicians after seven days, but did not provide information on the continuation of breastfeeding (Hager 1996). In this study all women prescribed cephradine and most of those prescribed amoxicillin had symptom improvement after seven days; there were no statistically significant differences between groups (risk ratio (RR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65 to 1.12) (Analysis 1.1).

Thomsen 1984 assessed continuation of breastfeeding after 14 days. In this study, analysis was carried out on cases (breasts) rather than a participant basis. Each case was a breast with mastitis symptoms. Cases were divided into three groups depending on laboratory investigations; cases with milk stasis only (n = 126), cases with non‐infective inflammation (n = 48), and cases with infective mastitis (n = 165). Only cases in the third group (those with infective disease) were considered relevant to this review. This infective mastitis group was divided into three subgroups: cases receiving no treatment (n = 55), breast emptying only with no antibiotic therapy (n = 55), or receiving antibiotic therapy plus emptying the breast (n = 55). We carried out two separate comparisons: first women receiving no treatment versus women receiving antibiotics with breast emptying; and second, breast emptying alone versus antibiotics with breast emptying.

For cases with infective mastitis, the outcome was good in 15% of cases if there was no treatment and in most cases (96%) for women undergoing antibiotic therapy with breast emptying (RR 6.63, 95% CI 3.48 to 12.60) (Analysis 2.1). (The outcome was considered either as good if inflammatory symptoms disappeared followed by normal lactation two weeks after the initial diagnosis; or bad when symptoms persisted for more than 14 days. Impaired milk secretion, recurrence of infection, or progression of the symptoms to sepsis or breast abscesses were also considered as bad outcomes.) When antibiotic therapy with breast emptying was compared with breast emptying alone, again those receiving antibiotic therapy were more likely to have a good outcome (RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.47) (Analysis 3.1).

Women were also likely to recover more quickly if they received antibiotics with a mean duration of symptoms of 6.7 days in the no‐treatment group, 4.2 days in the breast emptying group and 2.1 days in the antibiotic therapy with breast emptying group.

Sensitivity analysis

In the Thomsen 1984 study, the unit of analyses was breasts rather than individual women, so for women who contributed two infected breasts to the analysis, the response to treatment in each breast was unlikely to have been independent. We therefore conducted a series of sensitivity analyses where we made several different assumptions. For example, we assumed that 28 women (in both groups) each had two infected breasts; this effectively reduced the sample size to half the original size. The results of the sensitivity analyses (based on differing assumptions) made little difference to the results, although the smaller sample sizes (when women rather than single breasts were the unit of analysis) resulted in wider confidence intervals.

Secondary outcomes

Thomsen 1984 did not report whether or not there were any adverse events or drug reactions following antibiotic therapy. Hager 1996, however, mentioned that there were no adverse side effects to the antibiotics administered. The women were asked about compliance with dosing at the return visit, and all indicated that they had taken their medication as prescribed with no complications. Neonatal complications, hospitalisation and costs were not reported in either study.

Relapse rate

Recurrence within 30 days was reported for one woman (7.6%) in the amoxicillin arm and two women (16.6%) in the cephradine arm (Hager 1996). Thomsen 1984 had an overall recurrence of 12 cases in the infective mastitis arm. The recurrence rate for the antibiotic therapy group was not stated.

Discussion

The main finding of the review is that there is insufficient evidence available to confidently evaluate the effect of antibiotic therapy on mastitis. Controlled scientific studies such as randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are lacking in this field. Observational studies suggest that the type of antibiotic prescribed depends on physician preference, without any scientific proof. Various classes of antibiotics are prescribed without laboratory investigation. These include penicillins and cephalosporins (Amir 2004b; Marchant 2002; Olsen 1990). Antibiotic resistance may arise as a result of tendency to prescribe broad‐spectrum antibiotics. It is possible that lower‐cost, narrower‐spectrum antibiotics based on bacterial culture might be as effective as the use of higher cost, broad‐spectrum antibiotics. The findings of this review were not able to shed light on these questions.

Antibiotic therapy can be directed by leucocyte count and the susceptibility tests of isolated bacteria (Hager 1996). This approach was used by Thomsen 1984, who examined the effect of antibiotic therapy versus supportive therapy. They categorised 213 women with mastitis into three groups: milk stasis (with bacteria < 103/mL; leucocytes < 106/mL), non‐infective inflammation (bacteria < 103/mL; leucocytes > 106/mL), and infective mastitis (bacteria > 103/mL; leucocytes > 106/mL). For those in the latter group, antibiotic therapy was based on sensitivity cultivation. Women who received antibiotic therapy achieved the fastest symptom clearance of 2.1 days, as opposed to the other two groups (6.7 days if under no treatment and 4.2 days if under supportive therapy). Moreover, 11% of cases with no intervention developed an abscess, while none in the group treated with antibiotic therapy suffered from any abscess, indicating a better outcome if antibiotics were used in cases with mastitis. However, there were limitations in the Thomsen 1984 study. Although it was a RCT, the study was conducted 25 years ago and it lacked several features of a well‐designed trial: the process of concealment was not mentioned and there was no placebo used.

Current practice for treating mastitis varies widely. There is a lack of properly‐designed RCTs to evaluate the best antibiotic therapy for treating mastitis. Hager 1996 is the only RCT suitable for review that compared two types of antibiotics (amoxicillin, cephradine) in a small group of 25 women with mastitis. The author‐calculated sample size for each arm of this study was 72; however, the number of included women was 13 for the amoxicillin group and 12 in the cephradine group. Therefore, this study was underpowered and was unable to detect differences in the predetermined treatment outcome. The authors were unable to run a Chi² test as the number of women in cross‐tabulated cells was less than five. Therefore, the Fisher Exact test was used and there was no significant difference between the two arms in terms of treatment failure.

Hager 1996 suggested that both oral antibiotics appeared equally effective in the treatment of sporadic acute puerperal mastitis. Moreover, there is a lack of information on the possible side effects of antibiotics on neonates when they are used for treatment of mastitis.

Our updated literature search was unfruitful in finding any studies that looked at some of the pre‐determined outcomes of this review, such as hospitalisation and costs. We found two new studies (Fernandez 2008; Jimenez 2008) focusing on other methods of treatment using probiotics and other agents such as nisin. These studies introduced lactobacillus strains and bacteriocin nisin as the potential and effective alternative therapy for mastitis. However, since the focus of our study is antibiotic therapy we did not include them in our review. It is recommended that a new title would specifically look into the effectiveness of these alternative therapies. The need for comprehensive RCTs on mastitis and antibiotic therapy still remains.

Comparison 1 Amoxicillin versus cephradine, Outcome 1 Symptom improvement assessed by clinician.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Amoxicillin versus cephradine, Outcome 1 Symptom improvement assessed by clinician.

Comparison 2 Antibiotic therapy with breast emptying versus no treatment, Outcome 1 Symptom improvement assessed by clinician and continuous breastfeeding.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Antibiotic therapy with breast emptying versus no treatment, Outcome 1 Symptom improvement assessed by clinician and continuous breastfeeding.

Comparison 3 Antibiotic therapy with breast emptying versus breast emptying alone, Outcome 1 Symptom improvement assessed by clinician and continuous breastfeeding.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Antibiotic therapy with breast emptying versus breast emptying alone, Outcome 1 Symptom improvement assessed by clinician and continuous breastfeeding.

Comparison 4 Sensitivity analyses: antibiotic therapy versus no treatment, Outcome 1 Assuming that in both groups both breasts are infected: symptom improvement assessed by a clinician.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 Sensitivity analyses: antibiotic therapy versus no treatment, Outcome 1 Assuming that in both groups both breasts are infected: symptom improvement assessed by a clinician.

Comparison 4 Sensitivity analyses: antibiotic therapy versus no treatment, Outcome 2 Assuming that in both groups 60% of women have 2 breasts infected and 40% 1 infected.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.2

Comparison 4 Sensitivity analyses: antibiotic therapy versus no treatment, Outcome 2 Assuming that in both groups 60% of women have 2 breasts infected and 40% 1 infected.

Comparison 5 Sensitivity analyses: antibiotic therapy versus breast emptying, Outcome 1 Assuming that in both groups both breasts are infected: symptom improvement assessed by a clinician.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5 Sensitivity analyses: antibiotic therapy versus breast emptying, Outcome 1 Assuming that in both groups both breasts are infected: symptom improvement assessed by a clinician.

Comparison 5 Sensitivity analyses: antibiotic therapy versus breast emptying, Outcome 2 Assuming that in both groups 60% of women have 2 breasts infected and 40% 1 infected.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.2

Comparison 5 Sensitivity analyses: antibiotic therapy versus breast emptying, Outcome 2 Assuming that in both groups 60% of women have 2 breasts infected and 40% 1 infected.

Comparison 1. Amoxicillin versus cephradine

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Symptom improvement assessed by clinician Show forest plot

1

25

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.85 [0.65, 1.12]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Amoxicillin versus cephradine
Comparison 2. Antibiotic therapy with breast emptying versus no treatment

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Symptom improvement assessed by clinician and continuous breastfeeding Show forest plot

1

110

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

6.63 [3.48, 12.60]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. Antibiotic therapy with breast emptying versus no treatment
Comparison 3. Antibiotic therapy with breast emptying versus breast emptying alone

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Symptom improvement assessed by clinician and continuous breastfeeding Show forest plot

1

110

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.89 [1.45, 2.47]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 3. Antibiotic therapy with breast emptying versus breast emptying alone
Comparison 4. Sensitivity analyses: antibiotic therapy versus no treatment

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Assuming that in both groups both breasts are infected: symptom improvement assessed by a clinician Show forest plot

1

56

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

6.75 [2.72, 16.77]

2 Assuming that in both groups 60% of women have 2 breasts infected and 40% 1 infected Show forest plot

1

68

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

6.4 [2.84, 14.44]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 4. Sensitivity analyses: antibiotic therapy versus no treatment
Comparison 5. Sensitivity analyses: antibiotic therapy versus breast emptying

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Assuming that in both groups both breasts are infected: symptom improvement assessed by a clinician Show forest plot

1

56

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.93 [1.32, 2.81]

2 Assuming that in both groups 60% of women have 2 breasts infected and 40% 1 infected Show forest plot

1

68

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.88 [1.33, 2.66]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 5. Sensitivity analyses: antibiotic therapy versus breast emptying