Moxifloxacin five‐day therapy versus placebo in acute bacterial rhinosinusitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of moxifloxacin in the treatment of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (ABRS). STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, phase III trial. METHODS: Patients with ABRS defined by clinical, radiologic, and bacteriologic criteria were recruited to the study. Study treatments were 400 mg of oral moxifloxacin or a matching placebo daily for 5 days. The primary end point was clinical response at test-of-cure, 1 to 3 days after the end of therapy in the modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population (patients with positive culture for one of five prespecified pathogens). Secondary efficacy variables included patient-reported symptom improvement measured using the Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-16 (SNOT-16), and concomitant medication use. RESULTS: The mITT population consisted of 118 patients (moxifloxacin, n = 73; placebo, n = 45). Clinical success rates were numerically higher for moxifloxacin (78.1%, 57/73) versus placebo (66.7%, 30/45); (P = .189). Significantly greater mean reductions in SNOT-16 scores occurred in moxifloxacin- versus placebo-treated patients (-17.54 vs. -12.83; P = .032). Overall concomitant medication use was lower in moxifloxacin versus placebo patients (38.4%, 28/73 vs. 55.6%, 25/45 respectively). Premature discontinuation due to insufficient therapeutic effect was significantly lower in moxifloxacin- versus placebo-treated patients (8.2%, 6/73 vs. 22.2%, 10/45; P = .031). The rate of treatment-emergent adverse events in the ITT population was similar between arms (moxifloxacin 38.2%, 96/251; placebo 40.7%, 50/123). CONCLUSIONS: Although moxifloxacin 5-day therapy for ABRS was not statistically superior to placebo for the primary end point, patients who received moxifloxacin had significantly greater improvements in health outcomes and used fewer concomitant medicines than patients treated with placebo, while experiencing no increase in adverse events.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".