Skip to main content
. 2019 Sep 16;2019(9):CD013120. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013120.pub2

Figueiredo 1997.

Methods Randomised clinical trial
Participants Country: Brazil
Number randomised: 38
Post‐randomisation dropouts: 0
Revised sample size: 38
Average age: 54 years
Females: 16 (42.1%)
Presence of other features of decompensation (hepatorenal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, or variceal bleeding): not stated
Alcohol‐related cirrhosis: not stated
Viral‐related cirrhosis: not stated
Autoimmune disease‐related cirrhosis (e.g. PSC, PBC, AIH): not stated
Other causes for cirrhosis: not stated
Treated for ascites in addition to antibiotics (e.g. albumin or diuretics): yes
Follow‐up in months: 0.25
Years of recruitment: not stated
Exclusion criteria

  • Hypersensitivity to cephalosporins

  • Secondary bacterial peritonitis

  • Severe shock

  • Renal failure

  • Grade III and IV encephalopathy

  • Hypotension
Interventions Participants were randomly assigned to two groups.
 Group 1: cefixime (n = 20)
 Further details: cefixime 400 mg/day oral until 2 days after resolution of signs/symptoms/polymorphonuclear count < 250/mm3
 Group 2: ceftriaxone (n = 18)
 Further details: ceftriaxone 1g IV twice/day until 2 days after resolution of signs/symptoms/polymorphonuclear count < 250/mm3
Outcomes Outcomes reported

  • Mortality

  • Proportion with recovery from SBP

  • Treatment costs
Notes We were unable to locate the current contact details of the author.
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 Quote: "Sealed envelope method"
Comment: further details were 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 Low risk Comment: there were no post‐randomisation dropouts.
Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk Comment: 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.