LETTER

Short versus standard duration antibiotic treatment for UTIs: a comparison of two meta-analyses

R Keren¹, E Chan²

¹ Department of Pediatrics, The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, USA
² Department of Pediatrics, The Children’s Hospital of Boston, USA

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to
R Keren;
keren@email.chop.edu

Keywords: urinary tract infection; meta-analysis; systematic review; treatment duration

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Having recently published a meta-analysis on the same clinical question,¹ it was with great interest that we read Michael et al’s systematic review of short versus standard duration antibiotics for urinary tract infections (UTIs) in children.² Given the publication (in close succession) of two meta-analyses on the same question with (on the surface) strikingly different results, we thought a comment was in order.

First, we applaud the authors on their methodologically sound review. The literature search was explicitly described and exhaustive. In fact, the authors identified a few studies that we had missed.^3–6 The study outcomes for meta-analysis (frequency of positive urine cultures at 0–7 days after treatment and at 10 days to 15 months after treatment, and development of resistant organisms and recurrent UTI) were relevant and clearly defined.

The authors provided appropriate and important meta-analysis measures including summary relative risks (RRs) and a quasi-NNT calculation with varying . . . [Full text of this article]

E M Hodson³, M Michael³, J C Craig³, S Martin³, V A Moyer⁴

³ Centre for Kidney Research, The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, Australia
⁴ Center for Clinical Research and Evidence Based Medicine, The University of Texas–Houston Health Science Center, Houston, TX, USA

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
E Hodson;
Elisah@chw.edu.au

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?