Evidence Hub

Sequential intravenous/oral moxifloxacin monotherapy for complicated skin and skin structure infections: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Chen F, Zheng N, Wang Y, Wen JL, Tu WF, Du YQ, Lin JM

International journal of clinical practice, 2013

2,255 participants · 5 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The presumed superiority of moxifloxacin for the treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections (cSSSIs) is based on laboratory data, but has not yet been established on clinical grounds. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sequential intravenous (i.v.)/oral (p.o.) moxifloxacin monotherapy for the treatment of cSSSIs.

METHODS: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published prior to November 2012 were systematically retrieved from PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ScienceDirect, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Finally, a meta-analysis of all RCTs eligible for inclusion criteria was performed.

RESULTS: Three studies that enrolled 2255 patients were included in the meta-analysis. There were no statistically significant differences between patients given moxifloxacin and those given other antibiotics with regard to clinical success rate [1667 patients, odds ratio (OR) = 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63 to 1.09, p = 0.18], bacteriological success rate (bacteriological success rates: 1502 patients, OR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.68-1.18, p = 0.45) or mortality (2207 patients, OR = 1.96, 95% CI 0.79-4.88, p = 0.15). Significantly, more overall adverse events (AEs) were associated with the use of moxifloxacin than with other antibiotics (2207 patients, OR = 1.21, 95%CI 1.00-1.45, p = 0.04). However, there was no statistically significant difference in the occurrence of drug-related AEs,…

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: 2,255 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