Navasa 1996.

Methods	Randomised clinical trial
Participants	Country: Spain Number randomised: 132 Post‐randomisation dropouts: 9 Revised sample size: 123 Average age: 59 years Females: 44 (35.8%) Presence of other features of decompensation (hepatorenal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, or variceal bleeding): both Alcohol‐related cirrhosis: both Viral‐related cirrhosis: not stated 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: 0.5 Years of recruitment: 1992‐1994 Exclusion criteria Absence of severe complications at infection diagnosis, i.e. shock, gastrointestinal haemorrhage, renal impairment or grade II‐IV hepatic encephalopathy Antibiotic treatment within 2 weeks before inclusion History of hypersensitivity to quinolones or beta‐lactam antibiotics
Interventions	Participants were randomly assigned to two groups. Group 1: ofloxacin (n = 64) Further details: ofloxacin 100 mg/day to 800 mg/day depending upon creatinine levels (4 days to 2 weeks) Group 2: cefotaxime (n = 59) Further details: cefotaxime 1 g/day to 8 g/day depending upon creatinine levels (4 days to 2 weeks)
Outcomes	Outcomes reported Mortality Proportion with recovery from SBP Other features of decompensation Length of hospital stay
Notes	We were unable to locate the current contact details of the author. Reason for post‐randomisation dropouts: secondary peritonitis, voluntary dropout
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "Randomization was performed with sealed envelopes containing the treatment options prepared with random numbers generated by the SAS statistical package (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC)".
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "Randomization was performed with sealed envelopes containing the treatment options prepared with random numbers generated by the SAS statistical package (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC)".
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	Unclear risk	Comment: there were post‐randomisation dropouts; it is not clear whether this was related to treatment and/or outcomes.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Comment: a prepublished protocol was not available but the authors report routinely measured clinical outcomes adequately.
Other bias	Low risk	Comment: no other bias was noted.