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)