检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
机构地区:[1]福建医科大学附属龙岩第一医院药剂科,福建省龙岩市364000
出 处:《中华全科医学》2014年第1期101-103,共3页Chinese Journal of General Practice
摘 要:目的 比较莫西沙星与左氧氟沙星治疗中国人群社区获得性肺炎(CAP)的疗效和安全性.方法 采用Meta分析的方法对有关奠西沙星与左氧氟沙星治疗中国人群CAP的临床疗效、细菌学疗效和不良反应发生率进行汇总分析.结果 共纳入11项随机对照研究.Meta分析结果显示2组有效率比较差异具有统计学意义(Z=6.21,P<0.01,OR =2.91,95% CI 2.07.4.07);2组细菌学疗效比较差异具有统计学意义(Z =4.91,P<0.01,OR=2.97,95% CI 1.92~4.58);2组不良反应发生率比较差异无统计学意义(Z=0.71,P=0.48,OR=0.86,95%CI0.56~1.31).Begg's检验和Egger's检验显示无发表性偏倚.结论 莫西沙星治疗中国人群CAP的疗效要高于左氧氟沙星,但两者安全性相当.Objective To compare the effects and safety of moxifloxacin and levofloxacin in the treatment for community- acquired pneumonia(CAP) in China. Methods The data of random controlled trials (RCTs) about moxifloxacin and levofloxacin on CAP were analyzed by Meta-analysis method to evaluate the clinical efficacy, bacteriological efficacy and incidence of adverse reaction. Results 11 RCTs were included into this study. Meta-analysis showed that the two groups had significant differences in clinical efficacy (Z =6.21 ,P 〈0.01 ,OR =2.91,95% C1 2.07 -4.07) and bacteriological efficacy ( Z = 4.91, P 〈 0.01, OR = 2.97,95 % CI 1.92 - 4.58 ). While, the incidences of adverse reaction between the the groups were similar ( Z = 0.71, P = 0.48, OR = 0.86,95 % CI 0.56 - 1.31 ). No significant publication bias was found by Begg' s test and Egger' s test. Conclusion The effects were higher in Chinese CAP patients treated by moxifloxacin than levofloxacin. But the safety was similar.
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.254