Search

The aim of this systematic review was to synthesize the results of original studies assessing antibiotic efficacy at different time points after initiating treatment in patients with a moderate probability of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis. We searched the Cochrane library for systematic reviews on the efficacy of antibiotic treatment in patients with acute rhinosinusitis (ARS). Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared treatment of any antibiotic with placebo were included. The synthesis of the results of six RCTs showed a benefit of antibiotic treatment compared to placebo for the rate of improvement after 3 [pooled odds ratio (OR) 2.78 (95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.39-5.58)] and 7 [OR 2.29 (95 % CI 1.19-4.41)] days after initiation in patients with symptoms and signs of ARS lasting for 7 or more days. After 10 days [pooled OR 1.36 (95 % CI 0.66-2.90)], improvement rates did not differ significantly between patients treated with or without antibiotics. Compared to placebo, antibiotic treatment relieves symptoms in a significantly higher proportion of patients within the first days of treatment. Reporting an overall average treatment efficacy may underestimate treatment benefits in patients with a self-limiting illness.

Background Lumbar spinal stenosis is the most common reason for spinal surgery in elderly patients. However, the surgical management of spinal stenosis is controversial. The aim of this review was to list aspects a surgeon considers when choosing a specific type of treatment. Methods Appraisal of arguments reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included in systematic reviews published or indexed in the Cochrane library studying surgical treatments in patients with spinal stenosis. Results Eight out of nine RCTs listed arguments for the choice of their treatments under investigation. The argument for decompression alone was the high success rate, the argument against was a potential increase in vertebral instability. The argument for decompression and fusion without instrumentation was that it is a well-established technique with a high fusion success rate, the argument against it was that the indication for fusion in spinal stenosis has remained unclear. The argument for decompression and fusion with instrumentation was an increased fusion rate compared to decompression and fusion without instrumentation, the argument against this was that the invasive procedure is associated with more complications. Conclusions The main argument identified in this appraisal for and against decompression alone in patient with lumbar spinal stenosis was whether or not instability should be treated with (instrumented) fusion procedures. However, there is disagreement on how instability should be defined. In a first step it is important that researchers and clinicians agree on definitions for important key concepts such as instability and reoperations. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12891-015-0548-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.