Evidence Hub

Short versus long antibiotic treatment for pyelonephritis and complicated urinary tract infections: a living systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Itay Zahavi, D. Kunwar, Judith Olchowski, Hagar Dallasheh, M. Paul

Clinical Microbiology and Infection, 2025

4,643 participants · 7 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To compile evidence on the durations of treatment for pyelonephritis or febrile complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI) in a living systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science from inception to November 30, 2024, trial registries, and conference proceedings. Living review searches will be updated monthly and the evidence yearly. Updates will be available at https://github.com/LivingSystematicReview/Pyelonephritis-KeepItShort.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults with pyelonephritis or cUTI with system signs (mainly fever). The primary outcome was clinical success by day 7 after end of treatment.

INTERVENTIONS

Different treatment durations within the same antibiotic class or treatment strategy (e.g. physicians' selected, in-vitro-matching antibiotics).

RISK OF BIAS

Assessment was conducted using the Cochrane ROB 2.0 tool.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Risk ratios (RR) were compiled using the fixed effect model and certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Subgroups of interest were assessed.

RESULTS

Sixteen RCTs were included, comprising 4,643 patients. Treatment durations of 5-7 days vs. 10-14 days were compared in 12 trials. There was some risk of bias concern in most trials, mainly due to dropouts and lack of blinding. There was no significant difference between short and long treatment durations for clinical success (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.98-1.04,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 4,643 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free