Summary of findings for the main comparison. Single‐dose versus short‐course (3‐7 days) antibiotics for treating lower urinary tract infection in children.
| Single‐dose versus short‐course (3‐7 days) antibiotics for treating lower urinary tract infection in children | ||||||
| Patient or population: children with lower urinary tract infection Settings: outpatient or emergency departments Intervention: single‐dose Comparison: short‐course (3‐7 days) | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Short‐course (3‐7 days) | Single‐dose | |||||
| Persistent bacteriuria Follow‐up: 1‐7 days | Study population | RR 1.3 (0.65 to 2.62) | 145 (2 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2 | ||
| 200 per 1000 | 260 per 1000 (130 to 524) | |||||
| Medium risk population | ||||||
| 245 per 1000 | 318 per 1000 (159 to 642) | |||||
| Recurrence | Study population | RR 1.5 (0.43 to 5.26) | 145 (2 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2 | ||
| 100 per 1000 | 150 per 1000 (43 to 526) | |||||
| Medium risk population | ||||||
| 85 per 1000 | 128 per 1000 (37 to 447) | |||||
| Re‐infection | Study population | RR 0.16 (0.02 to 1.26) | 45 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low3,4 | ||
| 250 per 1000 | 40 per 1000 (5 to 315) | |||||
| Medium risk population | ||||||
| 250 per 1000 | 40 per 1000 (5 to 315) | |||||
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. | ||||||
1 Neither study reported allocation concealment or blinding; one reported adequate randomisation method, but the other did not; ITT was used in both studies, but one had losses to follow‐up > 10%. 2 Small number of participants (≤ 50/group) and wide CI that crosses 1 3 Allocation concealment and blinding not reported. Random numbers table and ITT analyses used and no losses to follow‐up. 4 Very small numbers of patients (45)