Supplementary materials: Antibacterial data synthesis challenges: a systematic review of treatments for complicated Gram-negative urinary tract infections

This is a peer-reviewed supplementary table for the article 'Antibacterial data synthesis challenges: a systematic review of treatments for complicated Gram-negative urinary tract infections' published in the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research.Table S1. MEDLINE and EMBASE search strings.Table S2. COCHRANE LIBRARY (CENTRAL and CDSR) search strings.Table S3. PICOTS eligibility criteria for the systematic literature review.Table S4. Risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane Collaboration Tool.Table S5. Patient baseline characteristics.Figure S1. PRISMA flow diagram.Summary: Aim: To determine the suitability of network meta-analysis (NMA) using antibacterial treatment evidence in complicated urinary tract infection. Materials & methods: We conducted a systematic literature review to identify published clinical trial data for complicated urinary tract infection treatments. We performed a feasibility assessment to determine whether the available evidence would support the creation of a robust NMA, considering key assumptions of homogeneity, similarity and consistency. Results: Twenty-five trials met eligibility criteria. Risk of bias was low, and individual studies met their primary end point(s). Assumptions central to the conduct of a robust NMA were not met. Heterogeneity was ubiquitous, including baseline pathogen, treatment and patient characteristics. Conclusion: Limited and heterogeneous data identified make the use of NMA to compare novel antibacterial agents impractical and likely unreliable.

此为发表于《比较疗效研究杂志》之论文《抗菌数据综合分析挑战：复杂革兰氏阴性尿路感染治疗系统性综述》的同行评审补充表格。表 S1：MEDLINE 和 EMBASE 检索字符串。表 S2：Cochrane 图书馆（CENTRAL 和 CDSR）检索字符串。表 S3：系统文献综述的 PICOTS 纳入标准。表 S4：采用 Cochrane 协作组织偏差评估工具进行的偏差风险评估。表 S5：患者基线特征。图 S1：PRISMA 流程图。摘要：目的：确定利用抗菌治疗证据进行网络meta分析（NMA）的适用性。材料与方法：本研究进行了一项系统文献综述，以识别复杂尿路感染治疗的已发表临床试验数据。我们对现有证据进行了可行性评估，以确定其是否能够支持构建一个稳健的 NMA，同时考虑同质性、相似性和一致性等关键假设。结果：符合纳入标准的试验共有 25 项。偏差风险较低，且各独立研究均达到其主要终点。稳健 NMA 实施的核心假设未得到满足。异质性普遍存在，包括基线病原体、治疗和患者特征。结论：所识别的有限且异质性的数据使得利用 NMA 比较新型抗菌药物变得不切实际且可能不可靠。