对患有细菌性阴道病女性的性伴侣进行抗生素治疗- Amaya‐Guio, J ...

相关文章推荐

大气的香蕉 · 重庆市梁平区红旗中学- 搜狗图片搜索· 1 年前 ·

怕老婆的仙人球 · 什么是云计算？| Oracle 中国· 1 年前 ·

坐怀不乱的饺子 · 什么脸型适合剪寸头2018男生寸头发型图片大 ...· 1 年前 ·

没有腹肌的碗 · 胡锡进（人物） - 知乎· 1 年前 ·

气势凌人的弓箭 · 一克钛合金的价格是几多· 1 年前 ·

Scolaris Language Selector Scolaris Language Selector

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Recurrence of BV between the first and fourth week Show forest plot	1	218	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.28 [0.68, 2.43]

2 Recurrence of BV after the fourth week Show forest plot	3	372	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.00 [0.67, 1.52]

3 Clinical improvement during the first week Show forest plot	4	712	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.99 [0.96, 1.03]

4 Clinical improvement between the first and fourth week Show forest plot	3	590	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.02 [0.94, 1.11]

5 Clinical improvement after the fourth week Show forest plot	4	572	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.98 [0.90, 1.07]

6 Symptomatic improvement during the first week Show forest plot	3	577	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.06 [1.00, 1.12]

7 Symptomatic improvement between the first and fourth week Show forest plot	2	444	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.93 [0.84, 1.03]

8 Symptomatic improvement after the fourth week Show forest plot	2	296	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.03 [0.90, 1.17]

9 Minor adverse events during therapy in sexual partner Show forest plot	3	477	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.55 [1.55, 4.18]

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Recurrence of BV after the fourth week Show forest plot	1	51	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.71 [0.65, 4.55]

2 Clinical improvement between the first and fourth week Show forest plot	2	152	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.93 [0.70, 1.25]

3 Symptomatic improvement after the fourth week Show forest plot	1	70	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.66 [0.39, 1.11]

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Recurrence of BV after the fourth week Show forest plot	3	372	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.00 [0.67, 1.52]

1.1 5‐Nitroimidazoles	2	288	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.17 [0.74, 1.84]
1.2 Lincosamides	1	84	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.53 [0.19, 1.45]
2 Clinical improvement during the first week Show forest plot	4	712	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.99 [0.96, 1.03]

2.1 5‐Nitroimidazoles	3	574	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.99 [0.95, 1.03]
2.2 Lincosamides	1	138	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.02 [0.94, 1.10]
3 Clinical improvement between the first and fourth week Show forest plot	3	590	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.02 [0.94, 1.11]

3.1 5‐Nitroimidazoles	2	451	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.03 [0.93, 1.14]
3.2 Lincosamides	1	139	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.98 [0.87, 1.11]
4 Clinical improvement after the fourth week Show forest plot	4	572	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.98 [0.90, 1.07]

4.1 5‐Nitroimidazoles	3	433	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.99 [0.90, 1.08]
4.2 Lincosamides	1	139	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.97 [0.78, 1.22]
5 Minor adverse events during therapy in sexual partner Show forest plot	3	477	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.55 [1.55, 4.18]

5.1 5‐Nitroimidazoles	2	339	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.76 [1.60, 4.77]
5.2 Lincosamides	1	138	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.75 [0.54, 5.71]

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Clinical improvement during the first week Show forest plot	4	712	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.99 [0.96, 1.03]

1.1 Single	1	241	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.96 [0.89, 1.03]
1.2 Multiple dose	3	471	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.01 [0.97, 1.05]
2 Clinical improvement between the first and fourth week Show forest plot	3	590	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.02 [0.94, 1.11]

2.1 Single	1	233	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.13 [0.95, 1.35]
2.2 Multiple dose	2	357	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.97 [0.89, 1.05]
3 Clinical improvement after the fourth week Show forest plot	4	572	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.98 [0.90, 1.07]

3.1 Single	1	138	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.00 [0.86, 1.18]
3.2 Multiple dose	3	434	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.98 [0.88, 1.09]
4 Symptomatic improvement during the first week Show forest plot	3	577	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.06 [1.00, 1.12]

4.1 Single	1	241	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.02 [0.94, 1.12]
4.2 Multiple dose	2	336	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.09 [1.01, 1.18]
5 Symptomatic improvement between the first and fourth week Show forest plot	2	444	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.93 [0.84, 1.03]

5.1 Single	1	232	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.95 [0.83, 1.08]
5.2 Multiple dose	1	212	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.91 [0.78, 1.06]
6 Minor adverse events during therapy in sexual partner Show forest plot	3	477	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.55 [1.55, 4.18]

6.1 Single	2	339	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.76 [1.60, 4.77]
6.2 Multiple dose	1	138	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.75 [0.54, 5.71]

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Recurrence of BV after the fourth week Show forest plot	3	372	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.00 [0.67, 1.52]

1.1 Low risk	1	98	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.96 [0.48, 1.92]
1.2 Unclear risk	2	274	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.03 [0.62, 1.71]
2 Clinical improvement during the first week Show forest plot	4	712	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.99 [0.96, 1.03]

2.1 Low risk	2	342	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.99 [0.93, 1.05]
2.2 Unclear risk	2	370	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.00 [0.96, 1.03]
3 Clinical improvement between the first and fourth week Show forest plot	3	590	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.02 [0.94, 1.11]

3.1 Low risk	1	233	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.13 [0.95, 1.35]
3.2 Unclear risk	2	357	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.97 [0.89, 1.05]
4 Clinical improvement after the fourth week Show forest plot	4	572	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.98 [0.90, 1.07]

4.1 Low risk	2	243	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.03 [0.90, 1.17]
4.2 Unclear risk	2	329	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.95 [0.84, 1.07]
5 Symptomatic improvement during the first week Show forest plot	3	577	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.06 [1.00, 1.12]

5.1 Low risk	2	348	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.06 [0.98, 1.14]
5.2 Unclear risk	1	229	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.07 [0.97, 1.17]
6 Symptomatic improvement between the first and fourth week Show forest plot	2	444	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.93 [0.84, 1.03]

6.1 Low risk	1	232	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.95 [0.83, 1.08]
6.2 Unclear risk	1	212	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.91 [0.78, 1.06]
7 Symptomatic improvement after the fourth week Show forest plot	2	296	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.03 [0.90, 1.17]

7.1 Low risk	1	107	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.03 [0.83, 1.29]
7.2 Unclear risk	1	189	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.02 [0.87, 1.20]
8 Minor adverse events during therapy in sexual partner Show forest plot	3	477	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.55 [1.55, 4.18]

8.1 Low risk	2	339	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.76 [1.60, 4.77]
8.2 Unclear risk	1	138	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.75 [0.54, 5.71]

推荐文章

大气的香蕉 · 重庆市梁平区红旗中学- 搜狗图片搜索

1 年前

怕老婆的仙人球 · 什么是云计算？| Oracle 中国

1 年前

坐怀不乱的饺子 · 什么脸型适合剪寸头2018男生寸头发型图片大全_设计

1 年前

没有腹肌的碗 · 胡锡进（人物） - 知乎

1 年前

气势凌人的弓箭 · 一克钛合金的价格是几多

1 年前

Link管理 · 51好读 · Sov5搜索 · 小百科

小百科 - 百科知识指南

Any antibiotic treatment versus placebo for the sexual partners of woman with bacterial vaginosis
Patient or population: sexual partners of women with bacterial vaginosis Setting: outpatient clinic Intervention: any antibiotic treatment Comparison: placebo
Outcomes	*Anticipated absolute effects ^ (95% CI)**		Relative effect (95% CI)	Number of participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)
	Risk with placebo	Risk with any antibiotic treatment
Recurrence follow‐up 4 to 12 weeks	Study population		RR 1.00 (0.67 to 1.52)	372 (3 RCTs)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low ^1,2
	196 per 1000	196 per 1000 (131 to 297)
Clinical improvement follow‐up 1 to 4 weeks	Study population		RR 1.02 (0.94 to 1.11)	590 (3 RCTs)	⊕⊕⊕⊕ high
	778 per 1000	794 per 1000 (731 to 864)
Clinical improvement follow‐up 4 to 12 weeks	Study population		RR 0.98 (0.90 to 1.07)	572 (4 RCTs)	⊕⊕⊕⊕ high
	778 per 1000	762 per 1000 (700 to 832)
Symptomatic improvement during the first week	Study population		RR 1.06 (1.00 to 1.12)	577 (3 RCTs)	⊕⊕⊕⊕ high
	863 per 1000	914 per 1000 (863 to 966)
Symptomatic improvement follow‐up 1 to 4 weeks	Study population		RR 0.93 (0.84 to 1.03)	444 (2 RCTs)	⊕⊕⊕⊕ high
	801 per 1000	745 per 1000 (673 to 825)
Symptomatic improvement follow‐up 4 to 12 weeks	Study population		RR 1.03 (0.90 to 1.17)	296 (2 RCTs)	⊕⊕⊕⊕ high
	743 per 1000	766 per 1000 (669 to 870)
Minor adverse events in sexual partner follow‐up: 1 to 12 weeks	Study population		RR 2.55 (1.55 to 4.18)	477 (3 RCTs)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ low ³
	80 per 1000	204 per 1000 (124 to 335)
* The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). Abbreviations: CI: confidence interval; RR: risk ratio; OR: odds ratio.
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate quality: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low quality: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low quality: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.
¹ Downgraded by 1 level for significant imprecision as the 95% CI was below 0.75 and over 1.25. ² Downgraded by 2 levels for imprecision as the 95% CI crosses through 0.75 and 1.25 and OIS is not achieved. ³ Downgraded by 2 levels for imprecision because the Optimal information size (OIS) was not achieved.

Any antibiotic treatment versus no intervention
Patient or population: sexual partners of women with bacterial vaginosis Setting: outpatient clinic Intervention: any antibiotic treatment Comparison: no intervention
Outcomes	*Anticipated absolute effects ^ (95% CI)**		Relative effect (95% CI)	Number of participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)
	Risk with no intervention	Risk with any antibiotic treatment
Recurrence follow‐up 4 to 12 weeks	Study population		RR 1.71 (0.65 to 4.55)	51 (1 RCT)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low ^1,2
	194 per 1000	333 per 1000 (126 to 885)
Clinical improvement follow‐up 1 to 4 weeks	Study population		RR 0.93 (0.70 to 1.25)	152 (2 RCTs)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low ^1,2,3
	851 per 1000	792 per 1000 (596 to 1000)
Symptomatic improvement follow‐up 4 to 12 weeks	Study population		RR 0.66 (0.39 to 1.11)	70 (1 RCT)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low ^1,2
	630 per 1000	416 per 1000 (246 to 700)
* The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). Abbreviations: CI: confidence interval; RR: risk ratio; OR: odds ratio.
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate quality: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low quality: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low quality: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.
¹ Downgraded by 2 levels due to imprecision as OIS was not achieved and the 95% CI crosses through 0.75 and 1.25. ² Downgraded by 2 levels as there were some limitations on blinding and incomplete outcome data domains. ³ Downgraded by 1 level for substantial heterogeneity (I² statistic is greater than 40%).

Any antibiotic treatment versus placebo
Patient or population: sexual partners of women with bacterial vaginosis Setting: outpatient clinics Intervention: any antibiotic treatment Comparison: placebo
Outcomes	*Anticipated absolute effects ^ (95% CI)**		Relative effect (95% CI)	Number of participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)
	Risk with placebo	Risk with any antibiotic treatment
Recurrence follow‐up 1 to 4 weeks	Study population		RR 1.28 (0.68 to 2.43)	218 (1 RCT)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ low ¹
	132 per 1000	169 per 1000 (90 to 321)
Clinical improvement during the first week	Study population		RR 0.99 (0.96 to 1.03)	712 (4 RCTs)	⊕⊕⊕⊕ high
	951 per 1000	942 per 1000 (913 to 980)
* The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). Abbreviations: CI: confidence interval; RR: risk ratio; OR: odds ratio.
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate quality: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low quality: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low quality: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.
¹ Downgraded by 2 levels for imprecision as the 95% CI crosses through 0.75 and 1.25 and OIS is not achieved.

Any antibiotic treatment versus placebo for the sexual partners of woman with bacterial vaginosis
Patient or population: sexual partners of women with bacterial vaginosis Setting: outpatient clinic Intervention: any antibiotic treatment Comparison: placebo
Outcomes	Anticipated absolute effects ^* (95% CI)		Relative effect (95% CI)	Number of participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)
	Risk with placebo	Risk with any antibiotic treatment
Recurrence follow‐up 4 to 12 weeks	Study population		RR 1.00 (0.67 to 1.52)	372 (3 RCTs)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low ^1,2
	196 per 1000	196 per 1000 (131 to 297)
Clinical improvement follow‐up 1 to 4 weeks	Study population		RR 1.02 (0.94 to 1.11)	590 (3 RCTs)	⊕⊕⊕⊕ high
	778 per 1000	794 per 1000 (731 to 864)
Clinical improvement follow‐up 4 to 12 weeks	Study population		RR 0.98 (0.90 to 1.07)	572 (4 RCTs)	⊕⊕⊕⊕ high
	778 per 1000	762 per 1000 (700 to 832)
Symptomatic improvement during the first week	Study population		RR 1.06 (1.00 to 1.12)	577 (3 RCTs)	⊕⊕⊕⊕ high
	863 per 1000	914 per 1000 (863 to 966)
Symptomatic improvement follow‐up 1 to 4 weeks	Study population		RR 0.93 (0.84 to 1.03)	444 (2 RCTs)	⊕⊕⊕⊕ high
	801 per 1000	745 per 1000 (673 to 825)
Symptomatic improvement follow‐up 4 to 12 weeks	Study population		RR 1.03 (0.90 to 1.17)	296 (2 RCTs)	⊕⊕⊕⊕ high
	743 per 1000	766 per 1000 (669 to 870)
Minor adverse events in sexual partner follow‐up: 1 to 12 weeks	Study population		RR 2.55 (1.55 to 4.18)	477 (3 RCTs)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ low ³
	80 per 1000	204 per 1000 (124 to 335)
* The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). Abbreviations: CI: confidence interval; RR: risk ratio; OR: odds ratio.
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate quality: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low quality: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low quality: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.
¹ Downgraded by 1 level for significant imprecision as the 95% CI was below 0.75 and over 1.25. ² Downgraded by 2 levels for imprecision as the 95% CI crosses through 0.75 and 1.25 and OIS is not achieved. ³ Downgraded by 2 levels for imprecision because the Optimal information size (OIS) was not achieved.

Any antibiotic treatment versus no intervention
Patient or population: sexual partners of women with bacterial vaginosis Setting: outpatient clinic Intervention: any antibiotic treatment Comparison: no intervention
Outcomes	Anticipated absolute effects ^* (95% CI)		Relative effect (95% CI)	Number of participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)
	Risk with no intervention	Risk with any antibiotic treatment
Recurrence follow‐up 4 to 12 weeks	Study population		RR 1.71 (0.65 to 4.55)	51 (1 RCT)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low ^1,2
	194 per 1000	333 per 1000 (126 to 885)
Clinical improvement follow‐up 1 to 4 weeks	Study population		RR 0.93 (0.70 to 1.25)	152 (2 RCTs)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low ^1,2,3
	851 per 1000	792 per 1000 (596 to 1000)
Symptomatic improvement follow‐up 4 to 12 weeks	Study population		RR 0.66 (0.39 to 1.11)	70 (1 RCT)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low ^1,2
	630 per 1000	416 per 1000 (246 to 700)
* The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). Abbreviations: CI: confidence interval; RR: risk ratio; OR: odds ratio.
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate quality: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low quality: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low quality: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.
¹ Downgraded by 2 levels due to imprecision as OIS was not achieved and the 95% CI crosses through 0.75 and 1.25. ² Downgraded by 2 levels as there were some limitations on blinding and incomplete outcome data domains. ³ Downgraded by 1 level for substantial heterogeneity (I² statistic is greater than 40%).

	Cochrane Review language Select your preferred language for Cochrane Reviews and other content. Sections without translation will be in English.

	Website language Select your preferred language for the Cochrane Library website.

Cochrane Review language

Website language

Copy or download citation