Wang Wen, Chen Wenwen, Liu Yanmei, Siemieniuk Reed Alexander C, Li Ling, Martínez Juan Pablo Díaz, Guyatt Gordon H, Sun Xin
Chinese Evidence-based Medicine Center and CREAT Group, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University and Collaborative Innovation Centre, Sichuan, China.
Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (HEI), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
BMJ Open. 2018 Feb 6;8(2):e020991. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020991.
To assess the impact of adjunctive antibiotic therapy on uncomplicated skin abscesses.
Systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov.
A BMJ Rapid Recommendation panel provided input on design, important outcomes and the interpretation of the results. Eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) included a comparison of antibiotics against no antibiotics or a comparison of different antibiotics in patients with uncomplicated skin abscesses, and reported outcomes prespecified by the linked guideline panel.
Reviewers independently screened abstracts and full texts for eligibility, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We performed random-effects meta-analyses that compared antibiotics with no antibiotics, along with a limited number of prespecified subgroup hypotheses. We also performed network meta-analysis with a Bayesian framework to compare effects of different antibiotics. Quality of evidence was assessed with The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
Fourteen RCTs including 4198 patients proved eligible. Compared with no antibiotics, antibiotics probably lower the risk of treatment failure (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.90; low quality), recurrence within 1 month (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.77; moderate quality), hospitalisation (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.94; moderate quality) and late recurrence (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.85; moderate quality). However, relative to no use, antibiotics probably increase the risk of gastrointestinal side effects (trimethoprim and sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX): OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.58; moderate quality; clindamycin: OR 2.29, 95% CI 1.35 to 3.88; high quality) and diarrhoea (clindamycin: OR 2.71, 95% CI 1.50 to 4.89; high quality). Cephalosporins did not reduce the risk of treatment failure compared with placebo (moderate quality).
In patients with uncomplicated skin abscesses, moderate-to-high quality evidence suggests TMP-SMX or clindamycin confer a modest benefit for several important outcomes, but this is offset by a similar risk of adverse effects. Clindamycin has a substantially higher risk of diarrhoea than TMP-SMX. Cephalosporins are probably not effective.
评估辅助抗生素治疗对单纯性皮肤脓肿的影响。
系统评价和网状Meta分析。
Medline、Embase、Cochrane对照试验中央注册库和ClinicalTrials.gov。
英国医学杂志快速推荐小组为设计、重要结局和结果解释提供了意见。符合条件的随机对照试验(RCT)包括将抗生素与不使用抗生素进行比较,或对单纯性皮肤脓肿患者使用不同抗生素进行比较,并报告相关指南小组预先指定的结局。
综述作者独立筛选摘要和全文以确定是否符合条件,评估偏倚风险并提取数据。我们进行了随机效应Meta分析,比较抗生素与不使用抗生素的情况,以及少数预先指定的亚组假设。我们还使用贝叶斯框架进行网状Meta分析,以比较不同抗生素的效果。采用推荐分级评估、制定和评价(GRADE)方法评估证据质量。
14项RCT(共4198例患者)被证明符合条件。与不使用抗生素相比,抗生素可能降低治疗失败风险(比值比[OR]0.58,95%置信区间[CI]0.37至0.90;低质量)、1个月内复发风险(OR0.48,95%CI0.30至0.77;中等质量)、住院风险(OR0.55,95%CI0.32至0.94;中等质量)和晚期复发风险(OR0.64,95%CI0.48至0.85;中等质量)。然而,与不使用抗生素相比,抗生素可能增加胃肠道副作用风险(甲氧苄啶和磺胺甲恶唑[TMP-SMX]:OR1.28,95%CI1.04至1.58;中等质量;克林霉素:OR2.29,95%CI1.35至3.88;高质量)和腹泻风险(克林霉素:OR2.71,95%CI1.50至4.89;高质量)。与安慰剂相比,头孢菌素未降低治疗失败风险(中等质量)。
对于单纯性皮肤脓肿患者,中高质量证据表明TMP-SMX或克林霉素在几个重要结局方面有适度益处,但这被类似的不良反应风险所抵消。克林霉素导致腹泻的风险明显高于TMP-SMX。头孢菌素可能无效。