Table 4. Summary of our confidence in effect estimates and ranking of treatments.
| Comparison | Nature of the evidence | Confidence | Downgrading due to |
| AB: Quinolone antibiotic vs no treatment | Mixed | Low | Study limitations1; Indirectness2 |
| AC: Non-quinolone antibiotic vs no treatment | Indirect | Low | Study limitations1; Inconsistency3 |
| AD: Antiseptic vs no treatment | Mixed | Very low | Study limitations1; Imprecision4; Indirectness2 |
| BC: Non-quinolone antibiotic vs quinolone antibiotic | Mixed | Very low | Study limitations1; Imprecision4; Indirectness2 |
| BD: Antiseptic vs quinolone antibiotic | Mixed | Moderate | Inconsistency3 |
| CD: Antiseptic vs non-quinolone antibiotic | Mixed | Very low | Study limitations1; Imprecision4; Indirectness2 |
| Ranking of treatments | Low | Study limitations 5 ; Inconsistency 6 |
1
Dominated by evidence at high or moderate risk of bias.
2
No convincing evidence for the plausibility of the transitivity assumption.
3
Predictive intervals for treatment effect include effects that would have different interpretations (there is additionally no convincing evidence for the plausibility of the transitivity assumption).
4
Confidence intervals include values favouring either treatment.
5
60% of the information is from studies at moderate risk of bias.
6
Moderate level of heterogeneity, and some evidence of inconsistency in the network.