Ask Science
Ask a science question, get a science answer.
Community Rules
Rule 1: Be respectful and inclusive.
Treat others with respect, and maintain a positive atmosphere.
Rule 2: No harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or trolling.
Avoid any form of harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or offensive behavior.
Rule 3: Engage in constructive discussions.
Contribute to meaningful and constructive discussions that enhance scientific understanding.
Rule 4: No AI-generated answers.
Strictly prohibit the use of AI-generated answers. Providing answers generated by AI systems is not allowed and may result in a ban.
Rule 5: Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
Adhere to community guidelines and comply with instructions given by moderators.
Rule 6: Use appropriate language and tone.
Communicate using suitable language and maintain a professional and respectful tone.
Rule 7: Report violations.
Report any violations of the community rules to the moderators for appropriate action.
Rule 8: Foster a continuous learning environment.
Encourage a continuous learning environment where members can share knowledge and engage in scientific discussions.
Rule 9: Source required for answers.
Provide credible sources for answers. Failure to include a source may result in the removal of the answer to ensure information reliability.
By adhering to these rules, we create a welcoming and informative environment where science-related questions receive accurate and credible answers. Thank you for your cooperation in making the Ask Science community a valuable resource for scientific knowledge.
We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.
view the rest of the comments
I've only skimmed the abstract, but it makes me think antibiotics aren't effective. I'm basing that on combining two findings that are explicitly stated there: cranberries don't work, and cranberries are no different to antibiotics. Transitive inference would imply that this means antibiotics don't work, although I'm surprised the authors haven't been more explicit about this, given they've left it ambiguous and it seems like an obvious question
Edit: there's slightly more detail at the bottom where it says "Cranberry products were not significantly different to antibiotics for preventing UTIs in three small studies." It looks like cranberries and antibiotics were only compared in a very limited set of studies, so perhaps take the comparison with a pinch of salt
The study is comparing cranberry products and antibiotics for prevention of UTIs (prophylaxis), not treatment of active infections - antibiotics are definitely effective for treating UTIs, but low-dose preventative antibiotics aren't that great for prevention and have the downside of potential resistance devlopment.
Ooookay! I think it get it. They're equally effective for preventing them, but obviously antibiotics are used to treat, not prevent. That makes a ton of sense, thank you