Skip to main content
. 2015 Mar 8;2015(3):CD001954. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001954.pub4

Kogan 2003.

Methods Location: Exequiel Gonzales Cortes Children's Hospital, Santiago, Chile
Children who presented with signs of classic bacterial pneumonia were randomly assigned to receive oral amoxycillin or azithromycin
Participants 48 children aged 1 month to 14 years were enrolled with classic bacterial pneumonia, with high fever and chest findings of crackles or signs of consolidation, and chest X‐rays with segmental, alveolar or lobar consolidation. 1 patient developed serious pneumonia in the first 12 hours of enrolment and was excluded from the study. The remaining 47 completed the study with 23 receiving azithromycin and 24 receiving amoxycillin. The number of children with M. pneumoniae was 8, with 5 in the azithromycin group and 3 in the amoxycillin‐clavulanate group
Interventions 1. Azithromycin 10 mg/kg once daily for 3 days
 2. Amoxicillin 75 mg/kg/day in 3 divided doses for 7 days
Outcomes 1. Clinical response: fever (> 38 ºC) at 3, 7 and 14 days after intervention
 2. Radiological findings
Notes Outcomes of this study were not relevant to our criteria
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk No information was available
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Quote: "Patients from the classic pneumonia group were randomly assigned to receive oral amoxicillin...."
Comment: the study did not report the concealment process
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Methods of blinding were not specified. Participants and caregivers may have been aware of their treatment group because the frequency and duration of drug administration was different between the groups. Radiology assessment was blinded
Quote: "All chest X‐rays done ... were seen by the same radiologist, who was not familiar with the patients' clinical history and treatment group."
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk The total randomised participants were analysed
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk The study protocol is not available
Other bias Low risk Baseline characteristics were comparable between the 2 treatment groups