Giamarellou 1998.

Methods	Study design: parallel, open‐label RCT Duration of study:1992 to 1993 Duration of follow‐up: 6 months
Participants	Country: Greece Setting: aged care facility Inclusion criteria: men and women ≥ 65 years; freely voiding; asymptomatic; strain susceptible to ofloxacin Definition of ASB: ≥ 100,000 CFU/mL urine specimens twice within 1 week, same pathogen Number: treatment group 1 (34); treatment group 2 (33); control group (29) Mean age, 95% CI (years): treatment group 1 (84.5, 72.2 to 96.8); treatment group 2 (82.8, 72.6 to 90.2); control group (82.9, 70.8 to 91.8) Sex (M/F): treatment group 1 (6/28); treatment group 2 (2/31); control group (7/22) Exclusion criteria: major musculoskeletal problems; incontinence; bladder catheter; recent manipulations of urinary tract; creatinine > 2 mg%; antibiotics within the previous 3 months; subjects needing help for basic daily living activities
Interventions	Treatment group 1 Ofloxacin: 200 mg twice/d for 3 days; 200 mg/d for a total of 3 months (87 tablets/person) Treatment group 2 Ofloxacin: 200 mg twice/d for 3 days fortnightly for a total of 3 months (36 tablets/person) Control group No treatment
Outcomes	Overall mortality Bacteriological cure at 3 and 6 months Definition bacteriological cure: < 1000 CFU/mL throughout treatment and after 3 months of follow‐up (at 6 months) for those who completed treatment Adverse events Development of resistance Physical impairment Kidney and hepatic status
Notes	Most E. coli in all groups 106 enrolled,16 men, 90 women, 10 did not accept programme, 96 randomised Follow‐up at 6 months: urinalysis and urine culture before treatment and once monthly for 6 months Fourth group of randomly selected, age‐matched individuals with repeatedly negative monthly cultures in the last year of the study was included as negative controls (40 people) Grants from Hoechst‐Roussell Hellas and the Sandoz Foundation for Gerontological Research
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Randomised, not described
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Open‐label study
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Open‐label study
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Loss to follow‐up described; treatment groups (refused (3), adverse events (2)); control group (refused (1))
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Not observed
Other bias	Unclear risk	Funding