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

<p dir="ltr"><b>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 </b><b><i>Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research</i></b><b>.</b></p><table><tr><td><ul><li><b>Table S1. </b>MEDLINE and EMBASE search strings.</li><li><b>Table S2. </b>COCHRANE LIBRARY (CENTRAL and CDSR) search strings.</li><li><b>Table S3. </b>PICOTS eligibility criteria for the systematic literature review.</li><li><b>Table S4.</b> Risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane Collaboration Tool.</li><li><b>Table S5.</b> Patient baseline characteristics.</li></ul></td></tr></table><ul><li><b>Figure S1. </b>PRISMA flow diagram.</li></ul><p dir="ltr"><b>Summary: </b><b>Aim:</b> To determine the suitability of network meta-analysis (NMA) using antibacterial treatment evidence in complicated urinary tract infection. <b>Materials & methods:</b> 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. <b>Results:</b> 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. <b>Conclusion:</b> Limited and heterogeneous data identified make the use of NMA to compare novel antibacterial agents impractical and likely unreliable.</p>