Response to letter to the editor: “Methodological considerations on the meta-analysis of doxycycline versus azithromycin for chlamydia trachomatis in cis-men”

Abstract

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

McGuinness

Higgins

. Chapter 13: assessing risk of bias due to missing results (reporting biases). In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane, 2024. https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook/current/chapter-13

Mathur

VanderWeele

. Meta‐regression methods to characterize evidence strength using meaningful‐effect percentages conditional on study characteristics. Res Synth Methods 2021; 12(6): 731–749. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1504

Chen

Wang

Chen

, et al. Efficacy of doxycycline versus azithromycin for the treatment of rectal chlamydia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Antimicrob Chemother 2021; 76(12): 3103–3110. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkab335

Kong

FYS

Tabrizi

Law

, et al. Azithromycin versus doxycycline for the treatment of genital chlamydia infection: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Infect Dis 2014; 59(2): 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciu220