Summary of findings ‐ AZLI vs placebo: Participants hospitalised for respiratory exacerbation
Summary of findings ‐ AZLI showed no clear difference in participants hospitalised for respiratory exacerbation compared with placebo (moderate certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Summary of findings ‐ AZLI vs placebo Participants hospitalised for respiratory exacerbation · adults and children with CF Summary of findings ‐ AZLI showed no clear difference in participants hospitalised for respiratory exacerbation compared with placebo (moderate certainty). Antibiotic therapy for chronic infection with Burkholderia cepacia complex in people with cystic fibrosis (2021) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.88 [0.53, 1.45] | 1 study · 100 participants | Moderate |
Summary of findings ‐ AZLI vs placebo Participants hospitalised for respiratory exacerbation · adults and children with CF Summary of findings ‐ AZLI showed no clear difference in participants hospitalised for respiratory exacerbation compared with placebo (moderate certainty). Antibiotic therapy for chronic infection with Burkholderia cepacia complex in people with cystic fibrosis (2019) · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyearlier version CD013079.PUB2, superseded | RR 0.88 [0.53, 1.45] | 1 study · 100 participants | Moderate |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Antibiotic therapy for chronic infection with Burkholderia cepacia complex in people with cystic fibrosis 2021 · 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.