Cited by 38Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchCystic Fibrosis Research AdvancesAsthma and respiratory diseases

Where is the supporting evidence for treating mild to moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations with antibiotics? A systematic review

Open access
Puhan, Milo A, Vollenweider, Daniela, Steurer, Johann, Bossuyt, Patrick M, ter Riet, Gerben·2008·BMC Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Randomised trials comparing different drugs head-to-head are extremely valuable for clinical decision-making. However, it is scientifically and ethically sensible to demand strong evidence that a drug is effective by showing superiority over a placebo before embarking on head-to-head comparisons of potentially ineffective drugs. Our aim was to study the evolvement of evidence from placebo-controlled and head-to-head trials on the effects of antibiotics for the treatment of mild to moderate exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. METHODS: We conducted a historical systematic review. Through electronic databases and hand-searches, we identified placebo-controlled and head-to-head antibiotic trials for the treatment of mild to moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations. We compared the numbers of patients recruited in placebo-controlled and head-to-head trials between 1957 and 2005. Using cumulative meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials, we determined when, if ever, placebo-controlled trials had shown convincing evidence that antibiotics are effective in preventing treatment failure in patients with mild to moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations. RESULTS: The first head-to-head trial was published in 1963. It was followed by another 100 trials comparing different antibiotics in a total of 34,029 patients with mild to moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations. Over time, the cumulative odds ratio in placebo-controlled trials remained inconclusive throughout with odds ratios ranging from 0.39 (95% confidence intervals 0.04-4.22) to the most recent estimate (1995) of 0.81 (95% confidence intervals 0.52-1.28, P = 0.37). CONCLUSION: Placebo-controlled trials do not support the use of antibiotics in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients with mild to moderate exacerbations. Conducting head-to-head trials is, therefore, scientifically and ethically questionable. This underscores the requirement to perform or study systematic reviews of placebo-controlled trials before conducting head-to-head trials.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1741-7015-6-28

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

2 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. ICH Steering Committee Harmonised tripartite guideline: choice of control group and related issues in clinical trials (E10) International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use: Geneva 2000
  2. Allegra LG Grassi C Grossi E Pozzi E Blasi F Frigerio D Nastri A Montanari C Montanari M Serra G The role of antibiotics in the treatment of chronic bronchitis exacerbation: follow-up of a multicenter study Ital J Chest Dis 1991 45 138 148 <Author: Please check the title of the journal>

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Puhan, M. A., Vollenweider, D., Steurer, J., Bossuyt, P. M., & ter Riet, G.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • University of Zurich (CH)
  • Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Puhan, Milo A
Venue
BMC Medicine
Published
2008-10-10
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
28-28
ISSN
1741-7015 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2083066812
Cited by
38
References
38
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 10
FWCI
0.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (115216)
  • Universität Zürich
  • Lunge Zürich
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Cystic Fibrosis Research Advances
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Asthma and respiratory diseases
Keywords
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, COPD exacerbations, antibiotics, cumulative meta-analysis, treatment failure, antibiotic efficacy
MeSH terms
Anti-Bacterial Agents, Humans, Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review