Evidence Hub

Comparative Effectiveness of Antimicrobial Regimens for Urinary Tract Infections in India: A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Saibal Das, Mihir Bhatta, Sarnendu Mondal, Mounamukhar Bhattacharjee, Agniva Majumdar, Manoj Kalita, Joydeep Majumder, Sovonlal Mukherjee et al.

Journal of Global Antimicrobial Resistance, 2026

956 participants

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of antimicrobial regimens in urinary tract infections (UTIs) tested in randomized controlled trials conducted in India and to determine whether any clinically coherent quantitative synthesis was justified.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched for randomized controlled trials published from January 2010 to June 2025 that evaluated antimicrobial regimens or treatment durations for symptomatic UTIs in India. Two reviewers independently screened records, assessed full texts, extracted study characteristics and outcome-specific denominators, and linked overlapping publications from the same trial. Risk of bias was assessed, and certainty was evaluated using GRADE (PROSPERO: CRD42025635146).

RESULTS

Seven unique randomized trials enrolled or randomized 956 participants. Four trials evaluated different oral regimens for uncomplicated lower UTI, two evaluated ceftriaxone-sulbactam-disodium ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (CSE) in complicated UTI or acute pyelonephritis against different comparators, and one compared 7 versus 14 days of effective non-fluoroquinolone therapy in selected hospitalized adults with acute pyelonephritis. One observational study was excluded, and two publications from the same CSE-1034 versus ceftriaxone trial were linked to avoid duplicate counting. No exact treatment comparison was replicated across independent trials. Risk of bias was high in three trials and…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, 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: 956 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