Esposito 1992.
Study characteristics | ||
Methods | 2‐arm, non‐blinded, parallel‐group RCT, with 5 to 10 days of treatment and follow‐up at 12 hours, 14 days and 21 days after interruption of treatment | |
Participants |
Location: Naples, Italy, 1 site Setting of recruitment and treatment: Institutes of Infectious Diseases and Otolaryngology, University of Naples Sample size:
Participant (baseline) characteristics:
Inclusion criteria:
Exclusion criteria:
|
|
Interventions |
Intervention (n = 30): topical ciprofloxacin hydrochloride 250 mg/mL, 12‐hourly for 5 to 10 days Comparator group(n = 30): intramuscular gentamicin sulphate 80 mg 12‐hourly for 5 to 10 days Concurrent treatment: aural toileting not mentioned |
|
Outcomes |
Outcomes of interest in the review: Primary outcomes:
Secondary outcomes:
|
|
Funding sources | No information provided | |
Declarations of interest | Ciprofloxacin powder was provided by Bayer Italia Spa, Milan, Italy; gentamicin by Schering Plough, Milan | |
Notes |
Unit of randomisation: not reported Methods for including patients with bilateral disease: not reported |
|
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Quote: "Ciprofloxacin was randomly given according to the following schedules" Comment: method of selection was not specific |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Comment: no specific information given |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | High risk | Comment: both treatments are by different routes of administration and given that no placebo was used, masking the intervention arms would not be achievable |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | High risk | Comment: no indication that outcomes assessors were blinded |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Comment: no dropouts reported |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | High risk | Quote: "the clinical and bacteriological evaluation was stated 12 hours and 14 and 21 days (follow‐up) after the interruption of treatment" Comment: study protocol not available for assessment. Although the methods section indicates that 3 time points were measured, only one time point (unclear which one) was reported. The other 2 time points were not reported. |