Chen 2005.
Methods | Randomised clinical trial | |
Participants | Country: China Number randomised: 45 Post‐randomisation dropouts: 8 Revised sample size: 37 Average age: 56 years Females: 9 (24.3%) Presence of other features of decompensation (hepatorenal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, or variceal bleeding): not stated Alcohol‐related cirrhosis: both Viral‐related cirrhosis: both Autoimmune disease‐related cirrhosis (e.g. PSC, PBC, AIH): not stated Other causes for cirrhosis: both Treated for ascites in addition to antibiotics (e.g. albumin or diuretics): not stated Follow‐up in months: 1 Years of recruitment: 2000‐2002 Exclusion criteria
|
|
Interventions | Participants were randomly assigned to two groups. Group 1: cefotaxime (n = 19) Further details: cefotaxime 1 g IV three times/day for minimum 5 day Group 2: amikacin (n = 18) Further details: amikacin with plasma level maintained at <= 30 mg/dL after a loading dose of 500 mg or 8 mg/Kg depending on weight for a total duration of minimum 5 days | |
Outcomes | Outcomes reported
|
|
Notes | Attempts were made to contact the authors in December 2018; there were no replies. Reason for post‐randomisation dropouts: other causes of peritonitis, death, discharged against medical advice before starting treatment |
|
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Comment: this information was not available. |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Comment: this information was not available. |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Comment: this information was not available. |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Comment: this information was not available. |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | High risk | Comment: there were post‐randomisation dropouts which were related to the outcomes. |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | High risk | Comment: a prepublished protocol was not available but the authors do not report routinely measured clinical outcomes adequately |
Other bias | Low risk | Comment: no other bias was noted. |