Van Buchem 1997a.
Methods | Study design: RCT Study duration: between 1 March 1993 and 1 March 1994 |
|
Participants | Setting: general practice Country: the Netherlands Health status: adults with a clinical diagnosis of maxillary sinusitis (history, physical examination), for whom antibiotic therapy was considered, confirmed by radiograph (> 5 mm mucosal thickening, opacity or air‐fluid level). Ear, nose, and throat comorbidity was assessed; approximately 12% had allergic disease. Number:
Age: mean 34 Sex: 63% women Exclusion criteria: other nasal disorders (e.g. nasal polyps), concurrent bronchitis, current episodes of longer than 3 months, antibiotic treatment during the previous month, known hypersensitivity to amoxicillin, hepatic, renal, or immunological disorder, and coagulation abnormalities |
|
Interventions | Treatment group:
Control group:
Co‐interventions (for all participants):
|
|
Outcomes | Primary outcomes:
Secondary outcomes:
Bacteriological outcomes were not assessed. |
|
Notes | Funding source: not stated Contact with study authors for additional information: none Other notes:
|
|
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Comment: unrestricted randomisation (computer‐generated list used for allocation) Quote: "The randomisation of allocation of the amoxicillin or placebo (distributed in identical bottles) was computer generated" |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Quote: "Randomisation of participants was carried out and capsules were provided by the hospital pharmacy in the hospital to which participants were referred to the ENT specialist." Quote: "During the trial, the code of allocation schedule was kept in the office of the head of the hospital pharmacy, and was broken prematurely only if severe clinical development or severe adverse effects occurred" Comment: the capsules with amoxicillin or placebo looked and tasted identical and were prescribed in the same frequency and for the same duration. The capsules were distributed in identical bottles. |
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Comment: nature of the medication blinded for the pharmacist's assistant, participant, and ENT specialist. |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Post‐randomisation dropout rate: 8/214 (3.7%)
Reason for missing data: not attending follow‐up visit Ratio of participants with missing data to participants with events: 0.07 Discontinuation of trial medication rate: 1/210 (0.5%)
Treatment compliance reported as 98% assessed by pills taking by participants. Intention‐to‐treat analysis |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | Comment: the study protocol is described in the methods section. The primary and secondary endpoints were predefined. |
Other bias | Unclear risk | Comment:
|