Wing 2008.
Methods |
|
|
Participants | Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
|
|
Interventions | Treatment group 1
Treatment group 2
Control group
|
|
Outcomes |
|
|
Notes | ||
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Computer generated randomisation table, stratified by site |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Treatment options were not known to researchers |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | Low risk | States all were blinded |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Clearly stated |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Data are well reported for completeness Losses to follow‐up/withdrawals: 73 withdrawals |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | Appropriate outcomes |
Other bias | Low risk | Details suggest free of bias, although selection methods a little unclear Source of funding: NS |
cfu ‐ colony forming units; CSU ‐ catheter specimen of urine; GFR ‐ glomerular filtration rate; ITT ‐ intention‐to‐treat; MSU ‐ midstream urine; NS ‐ not stated; PAC ‐ proanthocyanidin; SMP ‐ sulfamethoxazole; TMP ‐ trimethoprim; WBC ‐ white blood cell