Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background Trachoma is the world's leading cause of preventable blindness. In 1997 the World Health Organization launched an initiative on trachoma control based on the 'SAFE' strategy (surgery, antibiotics, facial cleanliness and environmental improvement). Objectives To assess the evidence supporting the antibiotic arm of the SAFE strategy by assessing the effects of antibiotics on both active trachoma (primary objective) and on Chlamydia trachomatis infection of the conjunctiva (secondary objective). Search methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials ‐ CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to February 2005), and EMBASE (1980 to February 2005). We used the Science Citation Index to look for articles that cited the included studies. We searched the reference lists of identified articles and we contacted authors and experts for details of further relevant studies. Selection criteria We included only randomised trials that satisfied either of two criteria: (a) trials in which topical or oral administration of an antibiotic was compared to placebo or no treatment in people with trachoma, (b) trials in which a topical antibiotic was compared with an oral antibiotic in people with trachoma. A subdivision of particular interest was of trials in which topical tetracycline/chlortetracycline was compared with oral azithromycin, as these are the two World Health Organization recommended treatments. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted investigators for missing data. Main results We found 15 studies that randomised a total of 8678 participants. For both outcomes (active trachoma and laboratory evidence of infection) the results of the chi squared tests suggested that there was significant statistical heterogeneity among the trials. There was also marked clinical heterogeneity. No summary statistics were calculated and we therefore present a narrative summary of the results. For the comparisons of oral or topical antibiotic against placebo/no treatment, the data are consistent with there being no effect of antibiotics but are suggestive of a lowering of the point prevalence of relative risk of both active disease and laboratory evidence of infection at three and 12 months after treatment. For the comparison of oral against topical antibiotics the results suggest that oral treatment is neither more nor less effective than topical treatment. Authors' conclusions There is some evidence that antibiotics reduce active trachoma but results are not consistent and cannot be pooled.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».