PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

C B Del Mar

Publications and source records attributed to C B Del Mar.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Antibiotics for sore throat.

BACKGROUND: Sore throat is a very common reason for people to present for medical care. Although it remits spontaneously, primary care doctors commonly prescribe antibiotics for it. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits of antibiotics for sore throat. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2006), MEDLINE (January 1966 to March 2006) and EMBASE (January 1990 to December 2005). SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials of antibiotic against control with either measures of the typical symptoms (throat soreness, headache or fever), or suppurative or non-suppurative complications of sore throat. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Potential studies were screened independently by two authors for inclusion, with differences in opinion resolved by discussion. Data were then independently extracted from studies selected by inclusion by two authors. Researchers from three studies were contacted for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: There were 27 studies with 2835 cases of sore throat. 1. Non-suppurative complications: There was a trend for antibiotics to protect against acute glomerulonephritis, but there were insufficient cases to be sure. Several studies found antibiotics reduced acute rheumatic fever by more than two thirds (relative risk (RR) 0.22; 95% CI 0.02 to 2.08). 2. Suppurative complications: Antibiotics reduced the incidence of acute otitis media (RR 0.30; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.58); of acute sinusitis (RR 0.48; 95% CI 0.08 to 2.76); and of quinsy (peritonsillar abscess) compared to those taking placebo (RR 0.15; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.47). 3. SYMPTOMS: Throat soreness and fever were reduced by antibiotics by about one half. The greatest difference was seen at about 3 to 4 days (when the symptoms of about 50% of untreated patients had settled). By one week about 90% of treated and untreated patients were symptom-free. The overall number need to treat to prevent one sore throat at day 3 was just under six (95% CI 4.9 to 7.0); at week 1 it was 21 (95% CI 13.2 to 47.9). 4. Subgroup analyses of symptom reduction: Analysis by: age; blind versus unblinded; or use of antipyretics, found no significant differences. Analysis of results of throat swabs showed that antibiotics were more effective against symptoms at day 3, RR 0.58 (95% CI 0.48 to 0.71) if the swabs were positive for Streptococcus, compared to RR 0.78 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.97) if negative. Similarly at week 1, RRs 0.29 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.70) for positive, and 0.73 (95% CI 0.50 to 1.07) for negative swabs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotics confer relative benefits in the treatment of sore throat. However, the absolute benefits are modest. Protecting sore throat sufferers against suppurative and non-suppurative complications in modern Western society can only be achieved by treating many with antibiotics, most of whom will derive no benefit. In emerging economies (where rates of acute rheumatic fever are high, for example), the number needed to treat may be much lower for antibiotics to be considered effective. Antibiotics shorten the duration of symptoms by about sixteen hours overall.

Anti-Bacterial Agents↗
PubMed2006

Celecoxib compared with sustained-release paracetamol for osteoarthritis: a series of n-of-1 trials.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the use of n-of-1 trials for short-term choice of drugs for osteoarthritis, with particular reference to comparing the efficacy of sustained-release [SR] paracetamol with celecoxib in individual patients. METHODS: Evaluation of community-based patients undergoing n-of-1 trials which consisted of double-blind, crossover comparisons of celecoxib 200 or 400 mg/day with sustained-release paracetamol 1330 mg three times a day in three pairs of 2 week treatment periods per drug with random order of the drugs within pairs. Outcomes evaluated were pain and stiffness in sites nominated by the patient, functional limitation scores, preferred medication, side effects and changes in drug use after an n-of-1 trial. Participants were 59 patients with osteoarthritis in multiple sites (hip 6, knee 24, hand 6, shoulder/neck 8, back 14, foot 5), with pain for >or=1 month severe enough to warrant consideration of long-term use of celecoxib but for whom there was doubt about its efficacy. Forty-one n-of-1 trials were completed. RESULTS: Although on average, celecoxib showed better scores than SR paracetamol [0.2 (0.1) for pain, 0.3 (0.1) for stiffness and 0.3 (0.1) for functional limitation], 33 of the 41 individual patients (80%) failed to identify the differences between SR paracetamol and celecoxib in terms of overall symptom relief. Of the eight patients who were able to identify the differences, seven had better relief with celecoxib and one with SR paracetamol. In 25 out of 41 [61%] patients, subsequent management was consistent with their trial results. CONCLUSIONS: N-of-1 trials may provide a rational and effective method to best choose drugs for individuals with osteoarthritis. SR paracetamol is more useful than celecoxib for most patients of whom management is uncertain.

Acetaminophen↗
PubMed2005

Advising patients to increase fluid intake for treating acute respiratory infections.

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory infection is a common reason for people to present for medical care. Advice to increase fluid intake is a frequent treatment recommendation. Attributed benefits of fluids include replacing increased insensible fluid losses, correcting dehydration from reduced intake and reducing the viscosity of mucus. However, there are theoretical reasons for increased fluid intake to cause harm. Anti-diuretic hormone secretion is increased in lower respiratory tract infections of various aetiologies. This systematic examination of the evidence sought to determine the benefit versus harm from increasing fluid intake. OBJECTIVES: To answer the following questions. (1) Does recommending increased fluid intake as a treatment for acute respiratory infections improve duration and severity of symptoms? (2) Are there adverse effects from recommending increased fluids in people with acute respiratory infections? (3) Are any benefits or harms related to site of infection (upper or lower respiratory tract) or a different severity of illness? SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to July Week 1, 2005), EMBASE (1974 to Week 29, 2005), Current Contents (current 5 years) and CINAHL (1982 to July week 3 2005). Reference lists of articles identified were searched, and experts in the relevant disciplines were contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the effect of increasing fluid intake in people with acute respiratory infections. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Each author assessed the identified studies to determine eligibility for inclusion. MAIN RESULTS: No RCTs assessing the effect of increasing fluid intake in acute respiratory infections were found. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently no evidence for or against the recommendation to increase fluids in acute respiratory infections. The implications for fluid management in acute respiratory infections have not been studied in any RCTs to date. Some non-experimental (observational) studies report that increasing fluid intake in acute respiratory infections may cause harm. RCTs need to be done to determine the true effect of this very common medical advice.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed2004

Delayed antibiotics for symptoms and complications of respiratory infections.

BACKGROUND: The use of antibiotics for upper respiratory tract infections is controversial. Any benefits have to be weighed against common adverse reactions (including rash, abdominal pain, diarrhoea and vomiting), cost and antibacterial resistance. There has been interest in ways to reduce antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory infections. One is delaying the use of prescribed antibiotics by more than 48 hours for acute upper respiratory tract infections. Such methods have been shown to reduce prescribing. This review asks what effect this practice has on the clinical course of the illness. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effect of delayed antibiotic use in acute upper respiratory tract infections compared to immediate use of antibiotics SEARCH STRATEGY: The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2004) which includes the Acute Respiratory Infection Groups' specialised register; MEDLINE (January 1966 to January Week 1 2004), EMBASE (1990 to September 2003) and Current Contents (1998 to 2003). The search was carried out by an expert librarian. Abstracts of identified articles were used to determine which studies were trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials involving patients of all ages defined as having acute otitis media, acute pharyngitis, sore throat, common cold, a viral upper respiratory tract infection, acute sinusitis, and acute bronchitis were included in which delayed antibiotics are compared to antibiotics used immediately. Delayed antibiotic use was defined as the use of or advice to use antibiotics more than 48 hours after the initial consultation. 'Immediate antibiotic use' was defined as the immediate use of oral antibiotics given at the initial consultation. Clinical outcomes measured included: the presence or absence of fever, cough, pain, duration and severity of illness, complications of the disease, adverse effects from the antibiotics. Trial quality was assessed independently by two reviewers who were blinded to the author, journal and results of each study. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data was collected by two reviewers who were blinded to the author and journal. Data were analysed and reported using RevMan. MAIN RESULTS: Seven trials were eligible on the basis of design and all reported patient-centred outcomes. Methodological quality of included trials was generally high. There was no difference between immediate and delayed antibiotic groups for symptoms on day one and day seven. For most symptom measures there was no significant difference between the immediate and delayed antibiotic groups. Missing data and marked heterogeneity between study outcomes prevented pooling of results as a meta-analysis. Three studies out of six reporting fever, all involving patients with sore throat, indicated that there was more fever in the delayed antibiotic group. The remaining three studies showed no difference. There was no significant symptom difference for patients with cough or the common cold between the two intervention groups. Pain and malaise severity scores at day three significantly favoured the immediate antibiotic group in children with acute otitis media (Little 2001). In this study by Little 2001 of children with otitis media proxies for other malaise related outcomes were reported, including 'last day of crying' which favoured the immediate antibiotic group by approximately 16 hours (0.69 days; 95% CI 0.31 to 1.07). In the same study, just over half a spoon of paracetamol a day less was used in the immediate antibiotic group (0.59; 95% CI 0.25 to 0.93). There was no significant difference between the intervention groups for the adverse outcome of rash. Two studies reported the outcome of vomiting which was reduced in the immediate antibiotic group in children with suspected streptococcal pharyngitis in El-Daher 1991 but there was no difference in children with sore throat in Little 1997. Diarrhoea was reported by three studies of which two showed no difference Little 1997; Arroll 2002a while Little 2001 reported less diarrhoea in the delayed antibiotic group in children with otitis media. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: When considering treatment options for upper respiratory tract infections, the option of delayed antibiotics has been used in an attempt to reduce the use of antibiotic prescriptions. This review shows that for all symptom scores the evidence varies between trials. Most symptom outcomes show no difference between immediate and delayed antibiotic groups. Three of the six studies, all involving patients with sore throat, indicated that patients in the delayed antibiotic group had significantly more fever that their counterparts in the immediate antibiotic group. The other three showed no difference for the outcome of fever. There is evidence indicating that for children with otitis media, pain and malaise scores are worse in the delayed antibiotic group compared to the immediate antibiotic group. This price must be weighed up against the benefits of reduced antibiotic prescribing. Future randomised controlled trials of delaying antibiotics as an intervention should fully report symptoms as well as changes of prescription rates.

Anti-Bacterial Agents↗
PubMed2004

Antibiotics for sore throat.

BACKGROUND: Sore throat is a very common reason for people to seek medical care. It is a disease that remits spontaneously, that is, 'cure' is not dependent on treatment. Nonetheless primary care doctors commonly prescribe antibiotics for sore throat and other upper respiratory tract infections. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits of antibiotics in the management of sore throat. SEARCH STRATEGY: Systematic search of the literature from 1945 to 2003, using electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, issue 2, 2003); MEDLINE (January 1966 to May 2003); EMBASE (January 1990 to March 2003), and the reference sections of the articles identified. We applied no language restrictions. We used abstracts of identified articles to identify trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials of antibiotic against control with either measures of the typical symptoms (throat soreness, headache or fever), or suppurative complications (meaning: forming pus) and non-suppurative complications of sore throat. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently screened potential studies for inclusion and resolved differences in opinion by discussion. The reviewers then independently extracted the data from the selected studies. We contacted the authors of three studies to acquire additional information not available in published articles. Potential studies were screened independently by two reviewers for inclusion, with differences in opinion resolved by discussion. Data was then independently extracted from studies selected by inclusion by two reviewers. Authors of three studies were contacted to acquire additional information not available in published articles. MAIN RESULTS: We included twenty-six studies, covering 12,669 cases of sore throat in the review.1. Non-suppurative complications There was a trend for protection against acute glomerulonephritis by antibiotics, but insufficient cases were recorded to be sure of this effect. Several studies found that antibiotics reduced acute rheumatic fever, to less than one third (odds ratio (OR) = 0.30; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.20 to 0.45). 2. Suppurative complications Antibiotics reduced the incidence of acute otitis media to about one quarter of that in the placebo group (OR = 0.22; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.43) and reduced the incidence of acute sinusitis to about one half of that in the placebo group (OR = 0.46; 95% CI 0.10 to 2.05). The incidence of quinsy was also reduced in relation to placebo group (OR = 0.16; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.35). 3. Symptoms Symptoms of headache, throat soreness and fever were reduced by antibiotics to about one half. The greatest time for this to be evident was at about three and a half days (when the symptoms of about 50% of untreated patients had settled). About 90% of treated and untreated patients were free of symptoms by one week. The overall number needed to treat to prevent one sore throat at day three was about 5.0 (95% CI 4.5 to 5.8); and at one week was 14.2 (95% CI 11.5 to 20.6). 4. Subgroup analyses of symptom reduction Subgroup analysis by age; blind versus unblinded; or use of antipyretics yielded no significant differences. The results of swabs of the throat for Streptococcus influenced the effect of antibiotics. If the swab was positive, antibiotics were more effective (the OR reduced to 0.16, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.26) than if it was negative (OR 0.65; 95% CI 0.38 to 1.12). REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotics confer relative benefits in the treatment of sore throat. However, the absolute benefits are modest. Protecting sore throat sufferers against suppurative and non-suppurative complications in modern Western society can be achieved only by treating with antibiotics many who will derive no benefit. In emerging economies where rates of for example acute rheumatic fever are high, the number needed to treat may be much lower. Antibiotics shorten the duration of symptoms by a mean of one day about half way through the illness (the time of maximal effect), and by about sixteen hours overall.

Anti-Bacterial Agents↗
PubMed2004

Antibiotics for acute otitis media in children.

BACKGROUND: Acute otitis media is one of the most common diseases in early infancy and childhood. Antibiotic use for acute otitis media varies from 31% in the Netherlands to 98% in the USA and Australia. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the effects of antibiotics for children with acute otitis media. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE, Index Medicus (pre 1965), Current Contents and reference lists of articles from 1958 to January 2000. The search was updated in 2003. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing antimicrobial drugs with placebo in children with acute otitis media. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Ten trials were eligible based on design, only eight of the trials, with a total of 2,287 children, included patient-relevant outcomes. The methodological quality of the included trials was generally high. All trials were from developed countries. The trials showed no reduction in pain at 24 hours, but a 30% relative reduction (95% confidence interval 19% to 40%) in pain at two to seven days. Since approximately 80% of patients will have settled spontaneously in this time, this means an absolute reduction of 7% or that about 15 children must be treated with antibiotics to prevent one child having some pain after two days. There was no effect of antibiotics on hearing problems of acute otitis media, as measured by subsequent tympanometry. However, audiometry was done in only two studies and incompletely reported. Nor did antibiotics influence other complications or recurrence. There were few serious complications seen in these trials: only one case of mastoiditis occurred in a penicillin treated group. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotics provide a small benefit for acute otitis media in children. As most cases will resolve spontaneously, this benefit must be weighed against the possible adverse reactions. Antibiotic treatment may play an important role in reducing the risk of mastoiditis in populations where it is more common.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed2001

Feasibility of an evidence-based literature search service for general practitioners.

OBJECTIVE: To test the feasibility of an evidence-based clinical literature search service to help answer general practitioners' (GPs') clinical questions. DESIGN: Two search services supplied GPs who submitted questions with the best available empirical evidence to answer these questions. The GPs provided feedback on the value of the service, and concordance of answers from the two search services was assessed. SETTING: Two literature search services (Queensland and Victoria), operating for nine months from February 1999. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Use of the service; time taken to locate answers; availability of evidence; value of the service to GPs; and consistency of answers from the two services. RESULTS: 58 GPs asked 160 questions (29 asked one, 11 asked five or more). The questions concerned treatment (65%), aetiology (17%), prognosis (13%), and diagnosis (5%). Answering a question took a mean of 3 hours 32 minutes of personnel time (95% CI, 2.67-3.97); nine questions took longer than 10 hours each to answer, the longest taking 23 hours 30 minutes. Evidence of suitable quality to provide a sound answer was available for 126 (79%) questions. Feedback data for 84 (53%) questions, provided by 42 GPs, showed that they appreciated the service, and asking the questions changed clinical care. There were many minor differences between the answers from the two centres, and substantial differences in the evidence found for 4/14 questions. However, conclusions reached were largely similar, with no or only minor differences for all questions. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to provide a literature search service, but further assessment is needed to establish its cost effectiveness.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed2001

Research output of Australian general practice: a comparison with medicine, surgery and public health.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the productivity of Australian general practice in terms of research publications with the productivity of other medical disciplines. DESIGN: A survey of Australian general practice, medicine, surgery and public health publications carried out by manual searching of specific journals and an electronic search of the US National Library of Medicine's "PubMed" database. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The number of original research publications by Australian general practitioners, physicians, surgeons and public health physicians during 1999; the relative publication rate of Australian general practice, medicine, surgery and public health over the period 1990-1999. RESULTS: Of original research articles published in 1999, GPs authored 65% (17/26) in Australian Family Physician and 3% (3/90) in the Medical Journal of Australia; physicians published 4% and 37%, respectively. The electronic search identified 54 research articles relating to Australian general practice published in 1999 in 21 different journals, only two of which were primary care journals. Over the period 1990-1999, there was a publication rate of one general practice [discipline] article per 1000 GPs in practice per year. Corresponding rates for medicine, surgery and public health were 105/1000, 61/1000 and 148/1000, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable disparity between the level of research output of general practice and that of the disciplines of medicine, surgery and public health. If we are to have effective general practice research, we urgently need to develop research skills, a supportive infrastructure and a culture that nurtures research.

Australia↗
PubMed2001

Ways of using evidence-based medicine in general practice.

General practitioners wanting to practise evidence-based medicine (EBM) are constrained by time factors and the great diversity of clinical problems they deal with. They need experience in knowing what questions to ask, in locating and evaluating the evidence, and in applying it. Conventional searching for the best evidence can be achieved in daily general practice. Sometimes the search can be performed during the consultation, but more often it can be done later and the patient can return for the "result". Case-based journal clubs provide a supportive environment for GPs to work together to find the best evidence at regular meetings. An evidence-based literature search service is being piloted to enhance decision-making for individual patients. A central facility provides the search and interprets the evidence in relation to individual cases. A request form and a "results" format make the service akin to pathology testing or imaging. Using EBM in general practice appears feasible. Major difficulties still exist before it can be practised by all GPs, but it has the potential to change the way doctors update their knowledge.

Australia↗
PubMed2001

Outcomes of a randomized controlled trial of a clinical pharmacy intervention in 52 nursing homes.

AIMS: To evaluate whether a year long clinical pharmacy program involving development of professional relationships, nurse education on medication issues, and individualized medication reviews could change drug use, mortality and morbidity in nursing home residents. METHODS: A cluster randomised controlled trial, where an intervention home was matched to three control homes, was used to examine the effect of the clinical pharmacy intervention on resident outcomes. The study involved 905 residents in 13 intervention nursing homes and 2325 residents in 39 control nursing homes in south-east Queensland and north-east New South Wales, Australia. The outcome measures were: continuous drug use data from government prescription subsidy claims, cross-sectional drug use data on prescribed and administered medications, deaths and morbidity indices (hospitalization rates, adverse events and disability indices). RESULTS: This intervention resulted in a reduction in drug use with no change in morbidity indices or survival. Differences in nursing home characteristics, as defined by cluster analysis with SUDAAN, negated intervention-related apparent significant improvements in survival. The use of benzodiazepines, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, laxatives, histamine H2-receptor antagonists and antacids was significantly reduced in the intervention group, whereas the use of digoxin and diuretics remained similar to controls. Overall, drug use in the intervention group was reduced by 14.8% relative to the controls, equivalent to an annual prescription saving of A64 dollars per resident (approximately 25 pound sterling). CONCLUSIONS: This intervention improved nursing home resident outcomes related to changes in drug use and drug-related expenditure. The continuing divergence in both drug use and survival at the end of the study suggests that the difference would have been more significant in a larger and longer study, and even more so using additional instruments specific for measuring outcomes related to changes in drug use.

Age Distribution↗
PubMed2000

Preliminary experiences with a single-patient trials service in general practice.

OBJECTIVE: To pilot a single-patient trials (SPTs) service in general practice, designed to improve decision-making about long-term medications for chronic conditions. DESIGN: 12-week within-patient, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover comparison of ibuprofen with paracetamol for osteoarthritis, involving three pairs of two-week treatment periods for each participating patient. SETTING AND PATIENTS: Patients attending an academic general practice with a clinical diagnosis of osteoarthritis, with pain of at least a month's duration severe enough to warrant consideration of long-term non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain and stiffness; measures of overall arthritis compared with previous fortnight; preference for NSAID at the end of each two-week treatment period; use of escape analgesia; side effects; and management changes as a result of the SPTs. RESULTS: Eight of 14 patients completed SPTs. One was a clear responder to NSAIDs, five were non-responders, and two were indefinite. Of the five who were using NSAIDs' before the SPT, two continued and three ceased using them. Clinically useful information assisted decision-making for all eight participants. Medication management changed for six. CONCLUSIONS: Single-patient trials can be successfully implemented in general practice and might be a valuable method for GPs to identify patients who respond to medication for chronic stable conditions such as osteoarthritis, in which individual response to medication is variable.

Acetaminophen↗
PubMed2000

Antibiotics for sore throat.

BACKGROUND: Sore throat is a very common reason for people to attend for medical care. Sore throat is a disease that remits spontaneously, that is, 'cure' is not dependant on treatment. Nonetheless primary care doctors commonly prescribe antibiotics for sore throat and other upper respiratory tract infections. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits of antibiotics in the management of sore throat. SEARCH STRATEGY: Systematic search of the literature from 1945 to 1999, using electronic searches of MEDLINE (using the keywords, "pharyngitis", "sore throat" and "tonsillitis") after 1966, the Cochrane Library, the Cochrane collection of hand-searched trials, and the reference sections of the articles identified. Abstracts of identified articles were used to determine which studies were trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials of antibiotic against control with either measures of the typical symptoms (throat soreness, headache or fever), or complications (suppurative and non-suppurative) of sore throat. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: RevMan 4.0.3 MAIN RESULTS: A total number of 10,484 cases of sore throat have been studied. 1. Non-suppurative complications There was a trend for protection against acute glomerulonephritis by antibiotics, but insufficient cases were recorded to be sure of this effect. Several studies found benefit from antibiotics for acute rheumatic fever, which reduced this complication to less than one third (OR = 0.30; 95% CI = 0.20-0.45). 2. Suppurative complications Antibiotics reduced the incidence of acute otitis media to about one quarter of that in the placebo group (OR = 0.22; 95% CI = 0.11-0.43) and reduced the incidence of acute sinusitis to about one half of that in the placebo group (OR = 0.46; 95% CI = 0.10-2.05). The incidence of quinsy was also reduced in relation to placebo group (OR = 0.18; 95% CI = 0.08-0.43). 3. Symptoms Symptoms of headache, throat soreness and fever were reduced by antibiotics to about one half. The greatest time for this to be evident was at about three and a half days (when the symptoms of about 50% of untreated patients had settled). About 90% of treated and untreated patients were symptom-free by one week. 4. Subgroup analyses of symptom reduction Subgroup analysis by age; blind vs unblinded; us of antipyretics; or results of swabs for Streptococcus yielded no significant differences. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotics confer relative benefits in the treatment of sore throat. However, the absolute benefits are modest. Protecting sore throat sufferers against suppurative and non-suppurative complications in modern Western society can only be achieved by treating many with antibiotics who will derive no benefit. Antibiotics shorten the duration of symptoms, but by a mean of only about half of one day at day 3 (the time of maximal effect), and by about eight hours overall.

Anti-Bacterial Agents↗
PubMed2000

Antibiotics for acute otitis media in children.

BACKGROUND: Acute otitis media is one of the most common diseases in early infancy and childhood. Antibiotic use for acute otitis media varies from 31% in the Netherlands to 98% in the USA and Australia. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the effects of antibiotics for children with acute otitis media. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, Index Medicus, Current Contents and reference lists of articles from 1958 to January 1999. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing antimicrobial drugs with placebo in children with acute otitis media. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Nine trials were eligible but only six trials, with a total of 1,962 children, included patient-relevant outcomes. The methodological quality of the included trials was generally high. All trials were from developed countries. The trials showed no reduction in pain at 24 hours, but a 34% relative reduction (95% confidence interval 16% to 48%) in pain at two to seven days. Since approximately 85% of patients will have settled spontaneously in this time, this means an absolute reduction of about 5% or that about 20 children must be treated with antibiotics to prevent one child having some pain after two days. There was no effect of antibiotics on deafness, as measured by subsequent tympanometry, other complications, or recurrence. However, audiometry was done in only two studies and incompletely reported, and there were few serious complications seen in these trials: only one case of mastoiditis occurred (in a penicillin treated group). One semi-randomised trial in Sweden in 1954 reported a rate of 17% in the untreated group versus none in the penicillin treated groups. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotics provide a small benefit for acute otitis media in children. As most cases will resolve spontaneously, this benefit must be weighed against the possible adverse reactions. Antibiotic treatment may play an important role in reducing the risk of mastoiditis in populations where it is more common.

Acute Disease↗