MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2310749201 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v8n11p178

Comparison of Efficacy and Side Effects of Azithromycin and Co-Amoxiclav in the Treatment of Acute Sinusitis in Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial

2016· article· en· W2310749201 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Soroush Amani, Ali Mohammadi-Najafabadi, Ali Ahmadi

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSinusitis and nasal conditions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAzithromycinSinusitisInternal medicinePopulationRandomized controlled trialAnalysis of varianceGastroenterologyClinical trialSurgeryAntibiotics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Regarding high prevalence of common cold and sinusitis in Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari Province and the lack of studies on patients referring hospitals in this province, this study was conducted to determine and compare the efficacy and side effects of azithromycin and co-amoxiclav. METHODS: This study was a double-blinded randomized clinical trial. The study population of this clinical trial was consisted of 90 patients with acute sinusitis aged 12-65 years. At least two major criteria or one major criterion and two minor criteria with duration of at least 7 days and at most 28 days, were some of the sinusitis diagnostic criteria for inclusion of the patients into the study. The patients were examined for symptoms prior to and twice after the treatment. The treatment was administration with 500 mg azithromycin tablet per day for three days in group 1 (G1) and 625 mg co-amoxiclav tablet every 8 h for 10 days in group 2 (G2). The data were analyzed by repeated measures analysis of variance, independent t-test, and chi-square in Stata software and P < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Mean±Standard deviation age of all patients was 32.14±9.91 years. Out of 90 participants in the study, 50 (55.56%) were male and the rest were female. The patients’ symptoms were quantitatively similar in the two groups (22.3±2 and 22.2±1.9 in G1 and G2, respectively) prior to the intervention. The score at second examination decreased to 3.7±2.1 in G1 and to 9.4±2.7 in G2, significantly different from that prior to intervention and between the two groups (P<0.001). Although the score decreased in the two groups at third examination, it was not significant in the two groups (P=0.652). The cure rate in azithromycin group was derived 87.5% and 88%, and in co-amoxiclav group 32.4% and 83.3% at the days 5 and 10 of treatment, respectively. The most prevalent side effects in the two groups were diarrhea and nausea. The prevalence of diarrhea was obtained 21% and 33% in G1 and G2, respectively. CONCLUSION: No significant difference in side effects was seen between the two groups. Although the cure was faster in the patients treated with azithromycin than those treated with co-amoxiclav, co-amoxiclav is still considered as adequately working against acute sinusitis bacterial pathogens. In view of this efficacy, co-amoxiclav seems to lead to no drug resistance and could be used to treat the patient

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.420 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicSinusitis and nasal conditionsFrench-language works237,207