Citas bibligráficas
Ruiz, S., (2024). Eficacia de la terapia combinada de colistina/rifampicina versus la monoterapia con colistina en pacientes con neumonía causada por Acinetobacter baumannii multidrogo resistente: Una revisión sistemática [Tesis, Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas (UPC)]. http://hdl.handle.net/10757/673382
Ruiz, S., Eficacia de la terapia combinada de colistina/rifampicina versus la monoterapia con colistina en pacientes con neumonía causada por Acinetobacter baumannii multidrogo resistente: Una revisión sistemática [Tesis]. PE: Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas (UPC); 2024. http://hdl.handle.net/10757/673382
@misc{renati/1297922,
title = "Eficacia de la terapia combinada de colistina/rifampicina versus la monoterapia con colistina en pacientes con neumonía causada por Acinetobacter baumannii multidrogo resistente: Una revisión sistemática",
author = "Ruiz Valle, Santiago Pedro",
publisher = "Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas (UPC)",
year = "2024"
}
A systematic analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was done to compare the efficacy and safety of colistin/rifampicin combination therapy versus colistin monotherapy in patients with multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii pneumonia. Databases like EMBASE, Pubmed, Web of Science, and Scopus were examined for searches up until July 2023. The terms "Acinetobacter baumannii”, "rifampin" and "colistin" were used in the search. The PRISMA methodology was used to elaborate the study. The RoB 2.0 tool was used to perform the risk of bias analysis, and the tool GRADE for the assessment of the degree of evidence certainty and the recommendation of the interventions with respect to the outcomes. Our primary outcome was disease remission. A total of 269 studies were obtained and 3 were included to develop the systematic review and meta-analysis. Their risks of bias were: low, with some concerns and high respectively. The primary outcome, disease remission, obtained very low certainty of evidence; while the secondary outcome mortality obtained low certainty. Regarding the primary result (RR 1.06; 95%CI 0.64 to 1.77; p = 0.52) and secondary outcome (RR 0.87; 95%CI 0.56 to 1.35; p = 0.80), the meta-analysis did not find a statistically significant difference between the intervention group and the control group. It is possible that small populations of the RCTs have prevented the results from being visible. More RCTs with a larger population are necessary to reach a definitive conclusion. (ID in PROSPERO database: CRD42023447604)
Este ítem está sujeto a una licencia Creative Commons Licencia Creative Commons