Macrolides vs other antibiotics: Clinical cure: aetiological approach
Macrolides showed no clear difference in clinical cure: aetiological approach compared with any other antibiotic (low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Macrolides vs any other antibiotic Clinical cure: aetiological approach · sexually active adults Macrolides showed no clear difference in clinical cure: aetiological approach compared with any other antibiotic (low certainty). Macrolides for treatment of Haemophilus ducreyi infection in sexually active adults (2017) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 1.06 [0.98, 1.15] | 5 studies · 348 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Macrolides for treatment of Haemophilus ducreyi infection in sexually active adults 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.