Oral Fluoroquinolones in the Treatment of Pneumonia, Bronchitis and Sinusitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite a relatively large number of clinical studies comparing oral fluoroquinolones to one antibiotic class comparator, there is limited information on the relative efficacy of different fluoroquinolones. OBJECTIVE: To examine the efficacy and tolerability of oral fluoroquinolones in the treatment of mild to moderate community-acquired pneumonia, acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis and sinusitis. METHODS: A systematic review was undertaken with a MEDLINE search for antibiotics and indications. Included studies met the following criteria: original study; random allocation to treatment groups; treatment with one of the following oral antibiotics - moxifloxacin, levofloxacin, ciprofloxacin, gatifloxacin; controlled by either placebo or an active comparator medication; double-blind, single-blind or open treatment; men and women (18 years of age and older); diagnosis of one of the three indications; and treatment duration of at least three days. Outcome measures included efficacy and safety. Comparative and single arm meta-analyses were conducted. Statistical differences in antibiotic success rates were evaluated. Pooled point estimates and 95% CIs for the comparative statistics (z-scores, P-values) and the single-arm analysis were examined to evaluate equivalence. RESULTS: The results of the comparative and single meta-analyses revealed no major differences between the new fluoroquinolones. This is not surprising because the clinical studies were designed to show equivalence versus their comparators. Few comparative evaluations were conducted due to a paucity of studies. In relation to other competitors, small differences were seen. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that, in general, fluoroquinolones had similar efficacy, overall safety and dropout rates.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".