Summary of findings 2. Nebulised antibiotics compared to IV antibiotics for pulmonary exacerbations in people with cystic fibrosis.
| Nebulised antibiotics compared to IV antibiotics for pulmonary exacerbations in people with cystic fibrosis | ||||||
| Patient or population: people with cystic fibrosis experiencing a pulmonary exacerbation Settings: inpatients (hospital) Intervention: nebulised antibiotics Comparison: IV antibiotics | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| IV antibiotics | Nebulised antibiotics | |||||
| FVC (% predicted) absolute change Follow up: 14 days |
The mean absolute change in FVC (% predicted) in the control group was 13% |
The mean absolute change in FVC (% predicted) in the intervention groups was not different 0% (3.94 lower to 3.94 higher) | 54 (1 study)(Schaad 1987) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,3 | The assumed risk represents the mean of effect observed in the IV antibiotics group and corresponding risk that of the result of the meta‐analysis with respect to the nebulised antibiotics group. Quality was determined by downgrading by one point based on the low numbers of events and downgraded further due to a lack of blinding. |
|
| Time to next exacerbation | Not reported | |||||
| Quality of life | Not reported | |||||
| *The authors calculated the assumed risk as the mean of the effect size of the control group in each study. 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; FVC: forced vital capacity; IV: intravenous | ||||||
| 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 one level for risk of bias; the study was either unblinded or single blind. 2 Downgraded one level due to the low numbers of events observed in the studies. 3 Downgraded one level for risk of bias with no information on blinding or randomisation methods used.