Evidence Hub

The efficacy and adverse reactions of minocycline against Mycoplasma pneumoniae pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Xiaoli Li, Yuqing Wang, Yuhua Zhao, Yahui Wu, Wei Qin, Fang Liu

Journal of Thoracic Disease, 2025

325 participants · 3 citations

Abstract

Background Mycoplasma pneumoniae pneumonia (MPP) is a common cause of community-acquired pneumonia, particularly in children and young adults. While macrolides such as azithromycin are standard treatments, increasing resistance and adverse effects underscore the need for alternative therapies. Minocycline, a tetracycline antibiotic, has shown promise but lacks comprehensive evaluation. This study aims to systematically review and analyze the efficacy and adverse reactions of minocycline in treating MPP through a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), providing evidence-based insights for clinical practice. Methods A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang Database up to March 2024. The control groups in these trials primarily received azithromycin (10 mg/kg/d) as a standard treatment. RCTs on minocycline treatment for MPP were included and analyzed using RevMan 5.4 software. Results Thirteen RCTs involving 325 participants, including 48 in self-control trials, were included. The overall treatment efficacy of the minocycline treatment group was significantly higher than that of the control group [odds ratio (OR) =2.24; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.31–3.84; P=0.003]. Hospitalization duration was significantly shorter in the minocycline group [mean difference (MD) =7.57; 95% CI: 6.96–8.19; P<0.001]. The duration of fever (MD =5.90; 95% CI: 4.82–6.97; P<0.001) and cough resolution…

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: 325 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