Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20091635›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2010

Antibiotic prophylaxis versus no prophylaxis for preventing infection after cesarean section.

Fiona M Smaill, Gillian Ml Gyte

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 9 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.

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

56 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 147 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. Prophylactic antibiotics for transcervical intrauterine procedures.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013
    Pooled it
  10. Intrauterine cleaning after placental delivery at cesarean section: a randomized controlled trial.The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine : the official journal of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies, the International Society of Perinatal Obstetricians · 2019
    Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Fiona M SmaillDepartment of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Room 2N16, 1200 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8N 3Z5.
Gillian Ml Gyte
McMaster University · CAUniversity of Liverpool · GB

Funding

Department of Health SRP/10/4001/02
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe single most important risk factor for postpartum maternal infection is cesarean section. Routine prophylaxis with antibiotics may reduce this risk and should be assessed in terms of benefits and harms.

objectivesTo assess the effects of prophylactic antibiotics compared with no prophylactic antibiotics on infectious complications in women undergoing cesarean section. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (May 2009). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing the effects of prophylactic antibiotics versus no treatment in women undergoing cesarean section. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and carried out data extraction. MAIN

resultsWe identified 86 studies involving over 13,000 women. Prophylactic antibiotics in women undergoing cesarean section substantially reduced the incidence of febrile morbidity (average risk ratio (RR) 0.45; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 0.51, 50 studies, 8141 women), wound infection (average RR 0.39; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.48, 77 studies, 11,961 women), endometritis (RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.42, 79 studies, 12,142 women) and serious maternal infectious complications (RR 0.31; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.48, 31 studies, 5047 women). No conclusions can be made about other maternal adverse effects from these studies (RR 2.43; 95% CI 1.00 to 5.90, 13 studies, 2131 women). None of the 86 studies reported infant adverse outcomes and in particular there was no assessment of infant oral thrush. There was no systematic collection of data on bacterial drug resistance. The findings were similar whether the cesarean section was elective or non elective, and whether the antibiotic was given before or after umbilical cord clamping. Overall, the methodological quality of the trials was unclear and in only a few studies was it obvious that potential other sources of bias had been adequately addressed. AUTHORS'

conclusionsEndometritis was reduced by two thirds to three quarters and a decrease in wound infection was also identified. However, there was incomplete information collected about potential adverse effects, including the effect of antibiotics on the baby, making the assessment of overall benefits and harms complicated. Prophylactic antibiotics given to all women undergoing elective or non-elective cesarean section is clearly beneficial for women but there is uncertainty about the consequences for the baby.

Indexed as

Antibiotic ProphylaxisBacterial InfectionsCesarean SectionEndometritisFemaleHumansPostoperative ComplicationsPregnancyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSurgical Wound InfectionUrinary Tract Infections

Identifiers

PMID20091635
PMCPMC4007637
OpenAlexW4237687360

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.