Summary of findings 2. Oral ciprofloxacin and inhaled colistin compared with no treatment.
| Oral ciprofloxacin and inhaled colistin compared with no treatment for eradicating Pseudomonas aeruginosa in people with cystic fibrosis | ||||||
|
Patient or population: adults and children with cystic fibrosis and a positive microbiological isolate of P. aeruginosa from a respiratory tract specimen Settings: outpatients Intervention: oral ciprofloxacin and inhaled colistin Comparison: no treatment | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| No treatment | Oral ciprofloxacin and inhaled colistin | |||||
|
Eradication of P aeruginosa from the respiratory tract Follow‐up: NA |
Outcome not reported | NA | NA | NA | ||
|
FEV₁ Follow‐up: NA |
Outcome not reported | NA | NA | NA | ||
|
FVC Follow‐up: NA |
Outcome not reported | NA | NA | NA | ||
|
Growth and nutritional status Follow‐up: NA |
Outcome not reported | NA | NA | NA | ||
|
Frequency of infective pulmonary exacerbations: number of exacerbations per patient year Follow‐up: NA |
Outcome not reported | NA | NA | NA | ||
|
Isolation of other micro‐organisms from the respiratory tract: number of positive cultures per patient year Follow‐up: NA |
Outcome not reported | NA | NA | NA | ||
|
Adverse effects to antibiotics Follow‐up: 27 months |
No adverse effects were reported in either group | NR | 26 (1 RCT) |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,3 | No numerical data were reported. | |
| *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). FEV₁: forced expiratory volume in one second; FVC: forced vital capacity; NA: not applicable; NR: not reported; P aeruginosa: Pseudomonas aeruginosa; RCT: randomised controlled trial | ||||||
| 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. Downgraded once due to risk of bias; methodological information was limited and unclear in the included study and there was a high risk of bias due to lack of blinding.
2. Downgraded once due to applicability: the included study recruited only children; results are not applicable to adults.
3. Downgraded once due to imprecision: no numerical results available.