Evidence Hub

Meta-Analysis of two drugs in the Treatment for Community-Acquired Pneumonia

Wen-Hong Lin

Chinese Journal of General Practice, 2014

Abstract

Objective To compare the effects and safety of moxifloxacin and levofloxacin in the treatment for communityacquired pneumonia( CAP) in China. Methods The data of random controlled trials( RCTs) about moxifloxacin and levofloxacin on CAP were analyzed by Meta-analysis method to evaluate the clinical efficacy,bacteriological efficacy and incidence of adverse reaction. Results 11 RCTs were included into this study. Meta-analysis showed that the two groups had significant differences in clinical efficacy( Z = 6. 21,P 0. 01,OR = 2. 91,95% CI 2. 07- 4. 07) and bacteriological efficacy( Z = 4. 91,P 0. 01,OR = 2. 97,95% CI 1. 92- 4. 58). While,the incidences of adverse reaction between the the groups were similar( Z = 0. 71,P = 0. 48,OR = 0. 86,95% CI 0. 56- 1. 31). No significant publication bias was found by Begg's test and Egger's test. Conclusion The effects were higher in Chinese CAP patients treated by moxifloxacin than levofloxacin. But the safety was similar.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

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