Question · asked by 1 review
Intravenous ceftazidime with tobramycin vs ciprofloxacin: Frequency of infective pulmonary exacerbations: number of participants experiencing an exacerbation
- Population
- adults and children with cystic fibrosis and a positive microbiological isolate of P aeruginosa from a respiratory tract specimen
- Intervention
- Intravenous ceftazidime with tobramycin
- Comparison
- ciprofloxacin
- Outcome
- Frequency of infective pulmonary exacerbations: number of participants experiencing an exacerbation
Intravenous ceftazidime with tobramycin showed no clear difference in frequency of infective pulmonary exacerbations: number of… compared with oral ciprofloxacin (high certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Intravenous ceftazidime with tobramycin vs oral ciprofloxacin Frequency of infective pulmonary exacerbations: number of participants experiencing an exacerbation · adults and children with cystic fibrosis and a positive microbiological isolate of Pseudomonas aeruginosa from a… Intravenous ceftazidime with tobramycin showed no clear difference in frequency of infective pulmonary exacerbations: number of… compared with oral ciprofloxacin (high certainty). Antibiotic strategies for eradicating Pseudomonas aeruginosa in people with cystic fibrosis (2023) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.78 [0.55, 1.1] | 1 study · 285 participants | High |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Antibiotic strategies for eradicating Pseudomonas aeruginosa in people with cystic fibrosis 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | Not extracted | Not assessed |
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.