Summary of findings 4. 10‐day trimethoprim versus 10‐day trimethoprim+sulfamethoxazole for treating lower urinary tract infection in children.
| 10‐day trimethoprim versus 10‐day trimethoprim+sulfamethoxazole for treating lower urinary tract infection in children | ||||||
| Patient or population: children with lower urinary tract infection Settings: outpatients department Intervention: 10‐day trimethoprim Comparison: 10‐day trimethoprim+sulfamethoxazole | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| 10‐day trimethoprim +sulfamethoxazole | 10‐day trimethoprim | |||||
| Persistent bacteriuria | Study population | RR 1.93 (0.38 to 9.76) | 59 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2 | ||
| 69 per 1000 | 133 per 1000 (26 to 673) | |||||
| Medium risk population | ||||||
| 69 per 1000 | 133 per 1000 (26 to 673) | |||||
| Persistent symptoms | Study population | RR 4.84 (0.24 to 96.66) | 59 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2 | ||
| 0 per 1000 | 0 per 1000 (0 to 0) | |||||
| Medium risk population | ||||||
| 0 per 1000 | 0 per 1000 (0 to 0) | |||||
| Recurrence | Study population | RR 2.9 (0.12 to 68.5) | 59 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2 | ||
| 0 per 1000 | 0 per 1000 (0 to 0) | |||||
| Medium risk population | ||||||
| 0 per 1000 | 0 per 1000 (0 to 0) | |||||
| *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 Randomisation method and allocation concealment were not reported. Investigator blind only. No ITT analysis and loss to follow‐up > 10% 2 Very small numbers of patients (59) and CI is very wide and crosses 1