Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15843938›Full record

Trial reportInternational journal of colorectal disease2005

Prospective, randomised study on antibiotic prophylaxis in colorectal surgery. Is it really necessary to use oral antibiotics?

Eloy Espin-Basany, Jose Luis Sanchez-Garcia, Manuel Lopez-Cano, Roberto Lozoya-Trujillo, Meritxell Medarde-Ferrer, Lluis Armadans-Gil, Laia Alemany-Vilches, Manuel Armengol-Carrasco

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in International journal of colorectal disease, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 93 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Antimicrobial prophylaxis for colorectal surgery.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014
    Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Eloy Espin-BasanyDepartment of General Surgery, Colorectal Surgery Unit, Hospital Valle de Hebron, Autonomous University of Barcelona, 4th Floor, Pg Valle de Hebron 119-129, Barcelona, 08035, Spain. eespin@vhebron.net
Jose Luis Sanchez-Garcia
Manuel Lopez-Cano
Roberto Lozoya-Trujillo
Meritxell Medarde-Ferrer
Lluis Armadans-Gil
Laia Alemany-Vilches
Manuel Armengol-Carrasco
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona · ESVall d'Hebron Hospital Universitari · ESHebron University · PS

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsThe use of prophylactic antibiotics in addition to mechanical cleansing is the current standard of care prior to colonic surgery. The question of whether the antibiotics should be administered intravenously or orally, or by both routes, remains controversial. Our aim was to compare three methods of prophylactic antibiotic administration in elective colorectal surgery.

methodsThree hundred consecutive elective colorectal resections were studied. All patients had preoperative mechanical colon cleansing with oral sodium phosphate and intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis with cefoxitin (one dose before skin incision and two postoperative doses). Patients were randomised to one of the following three groups: group A: three doses of oral antibiotic (neomycin and metronidazole) at the time of mechanical colon cleansing; group B: one dose of oral antibiotic; group C: no oral antibiotics. All patients were followed during their hospital stay and at 7, 14 and 30 days post-surgery.

resultsVomiting occurred in 31%, 11% and 9% of the studied patients (groups A, B and C, respectively) (p<0.001). Nausea was present in 44%, 18% and 13% of patients (p<0.001). Abdominal pain was recorded in 13%, 10% and 4% of patients (p: 0.077). Wound infection was present in 7%, 8% and 6% and suture dehiscence occurred in 2%, 2% and 3% of the patients in the three groups (no differences among them). Neither were differences found among the three groups in terms of urinary infections, pneumonia, postoperative ileus or intra-abdominal abscess.

conclusionThe addition of three doses of oral antibiotics to intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis is associated with lower patient tolerance in terms of increased nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain, and has shown no advantages in the prevention of postoperative septic complications. Therefore, we recommend that oral antibiotics should not be used prior to colorectal surgery.

Indexed as

ColectomyAdministration, OralAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntibiotic ProphylaxisColorectal NeoplasmsDrug Therapy, CombinationFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMetronidazoleMiddle AgedAnti-Bacterial AgentsMetronidazoleNeomycin

Identifiers

PMID15843938
OpenAlexW2006669282

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.