Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on the comparative efficacy and safety of azithromycin against other antibiotics for upper respiratory tract infections is a research paper published in Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (2001). On theSindex it has a DataRank of 0.557. It has been cited 40 times.
We carried out a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing 3-5 days of azithromycin with other antibiotics that are typically given in longer courses for the treatment of upper respiratory tract infections. For acute otitis media (19 comparisons including 3421 patients), acute sinusitis (11 comparisons including 1742 patients) and acute pharyngitis (16 comparisons including 2447 patients), azithromycin had similar clinical failure rates to the other antibiotics [random effects odds ratios 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81-1.54; 0.91, 95% CI 0.60-1.39; and 1.07, 95% CI 0.59-1.94, respectively]. The difference in clinical failures was <0.5%, and no 95% CIs exceeded 2.0%. There was no heterogeneity between studies. Subtle differences between comparators could have been due to chance. There were no significant differences in bacteriological outcomes. Azithromycin was discontinued because of adverse events in only 37 of 4870 (0.8%) patients. Short courses of azithromycin are as effective as longer courses of other antibiotics for upper respiratory tract infections. Convenience of dosing should be balanced against the increased cost of this regimen for the treatment of these common infections, where often no antibiotic may be indicated at all.
FAIR checklist signals are shown for context only and do not affect DataRank scoring.
Base Score Contribution
0.557
From this paper's citation signal
Citation Network Contribution
0
Citation network not refreshed for this result
This paper's DataRank is currently driven only by its base citation score. Citation network data was not refreshed for this result.
Learn more about DataRank methodology →DataRank blends this paper's own citation count with the influence of the papers that cite it. Here, roughly 100% comes from its base citations and 0% from the citation network.
Citers are pulled from OpenAlex sorted by cited_by_count:descand capped per paper, so when the cap binds we keep the highest-signal references and the score is reproducible across reruns.