Praharaj 2017.
| Methods | Randomised clinical trial | |
| Participants | Country: India Period of recruitment: not stated Number randomised: 59 Postrandomisation dropouts: not stated Revised sample size: 59 Mean age (years): not stated Females: not stated Presence of other features of decompensation (hepatorenal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, or variceal bleeding): not stated Ascites with low protein: not stated Primary prophylaxis: 0 (0%) 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): not stated |
|
| Interventions | Participants randomly assigned to 2 groups. Group 1: norfloxacin (n = 33) Further details: norfloxacin 400 mg daily for 6 months Group 2: rifaximin (n = 26) Further details: rifaximin 550 mg BD for 6 months Additional details: another 58 participants with high Child‐Turcotte‐Pugh score were excluded as it was unclear whether these participants had clinical features of decompensated liver disease. |
|
| Outcomes | Outcomes reported: proportion with spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (as per definition) Follow‐up (months): 6 |
|
| Notes | Attempted to contact authors in November 2018, but received no replies. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Comment: information not available |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Comment: information not available |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Comment: information not available |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Comment: information not available |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Comment: information not available |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | High risk | Comment: protocol not available, and authors did not report the outcomes assessed adequately. |
| Other bias | Low risk | Comment: no other bias noted |