Evidence Hub

Reducing antibiotic use in uncomplicated urinary tract infections in adult women: a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis

Y. Kaußner, C. Röver, Judith Heinz, E. Hummers, Thomas P. A. Debray, Alastair D. Hay, S. Heytens, I. Vik et al.

Clinical Microbiology and Infection, 2022

3,524 participants · 40 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigated analgesics, herbal formulations, delayed prescription of antibiotics and placebo to prevent overprescription of antibiotics in women with uncomplicated urinary tract infections (uUTI).

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the effect of these strategies and to identify symptoms, signs or other factors that indicate a benefit from these strategies.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, LILACS, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS

RCTs investigating any strategies to reduce antibiotics versus immediate antibiotics in adult women with uUTI in primary care.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We extracted individual participant data (IPD) if available, otherwise aggregate data (AD). Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis of the AD was used for pairwise comparisons. Candidate moderators and prognostic indicators of treatment effects were investigated using generalised linear mixed models based on IPD.

RESULTS

We analysed IPD of 3524 patients from eight RCTs and AD of 78 patients. Non-antibiotic strategies increased the rates of incomplete recovery (odds ratio [OR] 3.0; 95% credible interval [CI] 1.7-5.5; Bayesian p-value pB=0.0017; τ=0.6), subsequent antibiotic treatment (OR 3.5 [95% CI 2.1, 5.8; pB=0.0003) and pyelonephritis (OR 5.6; 95% CI 2.3, 13.9; pB=0.0003). Conversely, they decreased overall antibiotic use by 63%. In patients positive…

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: 3,524 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