Summary of findings 8. Sulphonamides versus tetracycline for Shigella dysentery.
| Sulphonamides versus tetracycline for Shigella dysentery | ||||||
| Patient or population: patients with Shigella dysentery Settings: Sri Lanka Intervention: Sulphonamides versus tetracycline | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Control | Sulphonamides versus tetracycline | |||||
| Diarrhoea at follow up clinical criteria Follow‐up: 8 days | 0 per 1000 | 0 per 1000 (0 to 0) | RR 7.68 (0.46 to 128.12) | 60 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,3 | Trial reported in 1961. Antimicrobial sensitivity not reported |
| Relapse ‐ not reported | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | ‐ | See comment | Duration of follow up too short (8 days) to assess relapse |
| Serious adverse events ‐ not reported | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | ‐ | See comment | No participant is reported to have developed serious adverse events. |
| Other adverse events ‐ not reported | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | ‐ | See comment | Not reported or pre‐stated as an outcome; unclear if assessed. |
| *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 Very serious limitations: Risk of bias likely due to inadequate allocation concealment and blinding and unclear reporting of numbers randomized and numbers analysed. 2 Unclear indirectness: Unclear from report if trial included adults and children; malnourished participants were not specifically excluded. 3 Very serious imprecision: The 95% CI of the pooled estimate includes appreciable benefit and appreciable harm with tetracycline and sulphonamides.