Evidence map›Paper›PMID 14752639›Full record

SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2004

Antibiotic prophylaxis in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Lack of need or lack of evidence?

M Catarci, S Mancini, P Gentileschi, C Camplone, P Sileri, G B Grassi

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02200315 (Phase II Study of the Efficacy of no Antimicrobial Prophylaxis Use for Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy for Gastric Carcinoma), which is not on this map. Cited by 24 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02200315 phase2completednot on this mapstarted 2014, after this paper: background citation

Phase II Study of the Efficacy of no Antimicrobial Prophylaxis Use for Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy for Gastric Carcinoma

TypeinterventionalSponsorKorean South West East Gastric Surgery GroupRan2014 to 2015Enrolled98ConditionsStomach NeoplasmsArmsNo Antimicrobial prophylaxis
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Elective Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: a Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2018
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. The role of prophylactic antibiotics in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
    Trial
  11. Article
  12. Clinical Predictive Score for Cholecystectomy Wound Infection: WEBAC Score.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

M CatarciDepartment of Surgery, San Filippo Neri Hospital, 20 Via G. Martinotti, 00135, Rome, Italy. m.catarci@sanfilipponeri.roma.it
S Mancini
P Gentileschi
C Camplone
P Sileri
G B Grassi

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe need to administer antibiotic prophylaxis (ABP) during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is still a matter of significant controversy. The purpose of this study was to resolve this issue by performing a meta-analysis of the available randomized controlled trials (RCT) on this topic.

methodsPapers identified via a systematic literature search were evaluated according to standard criteria. Data regarding the patient sample, study methods, and outcomes were abstracted and summarized across studies. The outcome measures were the rates of all perioperative infections, the rates of surgical site infections, and the rates of infections at other sites. Results were examined for 974 patients randomized to ABP or placebo prior to LC in six RCT published from 1997 to 2001.

resultsThe cumulative rates of all infections were 2.8% in the ABP group and 4.4% in the placebo group. The pooled odds ratio (OR) (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 0.69 (0.34-1.43; p = 0.32). The cumulative rates of surgical site infections were 2.1% in the ABP group and 2.9% in the placebo group. The pooled OR (95% CI) was 0.82 (0.36-1.86; p = 0.63). The cumulative rates of infections at other sites were 0.7% in the ABP group and 1.5% in the placebo group. Pooled OR (95% CI) was 0.82 (0.18-1.90; p = 0.37). No significant heterogeneity was found in any data pooling.

conclusionsBased on the available evidence, there appears to be no need to administer routine ABP to low-risk patients during LC. However, the number of patients enrolled to date into RCT is insufficient to avoid a type II error. A large and well-designed trial is urgently needed to find a conclusive answer to this question.

Indexed as

Antibiotic ProphylaxisCholecystectomyCholecystectomy, LaparoscopicConfidence IntervalsDatabases, BibliographicEvidence-Based MedicineHumansIncidenceOdds RatioProspective StudiesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSurgical Wound InfectionTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID14752639

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.