We have located links that may give you full text access.
CLINICAL TRIAL
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
REVIEW
Antibiotic trials in intra-abdominal infections. A critical evaluation of study design and outcome reporting.
Annals of Surgery 1984 July
The introduction of several new antibiotics, including cephalosporins and ureido-penicillins, has been a stimulus for clinical trials with these agents for intra-abdominal infection. Despite marked differences in antibacterial spectra, substantial differences in treatment results have not been documented. We reviewed published trials of antibiotic therapy for intra-abdominal infection to determine factors in study design that might impair identification of clinically important differences between regimens. Sixteen articles were identified that provided sufficient numbers of cases and data for analysis. Eight were prospective comparative trials, the remainder "single-armed" studies. The mortality rate was 3.5%, and the overall success rate was 84% for aminoglycoside plus clindamycin (range 52%-96%), 89% (range 83%-93%) for aminoglycoside plus metronidazole, and 93% (range 61%-95%) for cephalosporin-based regimens. Several defects in study design were identified. (1) Exclusionary criteria employed generally prevented enrollment of seriously ill patients or infections associated with high failure rates: Patients were excluded if even mild renal impairment was present or if antibiotic therapy had been recently administered, thereby excluding patients with postoperative or recurrent infections. Several studies allowed entry of contaminated but not infected patients. (2) Criteria used for reporting infectious diagnosis, premorbid health status, severity of infection, and outcome were nonuniform, and few studies provided such information. (3) Despite the small number of treatment failures, data reported did not allow determination of the basis for failure. For example, only four studies provided information on the operations performed upon treatment failures. Whether treatment failures were due to inadequate antibiotic therapy could therefore not be determined. Enrollment of a variety of low mortality infections precluded demonstration of any differences in regimens. Use of stratified randomization, stratifying for site of infection and severity of infection, and inclusion of greater numbers of patients would increase the likelihood of identifying differences between regimens. Such study design would likely require a multicenter trial to enroll sufficient numbers of cases for statistical analysis.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app