Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2010
Novel approach to antibiotic prophylaxis in percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG): randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antibiotic prophylaxis for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in pediatric patients: a meta-analysis.Pediatric surgery international · 2022Pooled it
- Systemic antimicrobial prophylaxis for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013Pooled it
- Comparative Safety and Volume Trends in Gastrostomy Tube Placement: Percutaneous Endoscopic Versus Percutaneous Radiologic Approaches at a Single Center.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Prevention and management of minor complications in percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2022Review
- Gastrostomy tubes: Fundamentals, periprocedural considerations, and best practices.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2022Review
- Managing complications of percutaneous tracheostomy and gastrostomy.Journal of thoracic disease · 2021Review
- Complications of Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy in Dogs and Cats Receiving Corticosteroid Treatment.Journal of veterinary internal medicine · 2016Article
- Aspiration therapy for obesity; a safe and effective treatment.BMC obesity · 2016Article
- Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: indications, technique, complications and management.World journal of gastroenterology · 2014Review
- Different clinical utility of oropharyngeal bacterial screening prior to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in oncological and neurological patients.BioMed research international · 2014Article
- Clinical implementation of a new antibiotic prophylaxis regimen for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.BMJ open · 2013Article
- Patients' perspectives of living with a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG).BMC gastroenterology · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate a new and simpler strategy of antibiotic prophylaxis in percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG).
designSingle centre, two arm, randomised, controlled, double blind clinical trial.
settingEndoscopy unit in Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden, between 3 June 2005 and 31 October 2009.
participants234 patients with an indication for PEG who gave informed consent to participate.
interventionA single 20 ml dose of the oral solution of sulfamethoxazole and trimethoprim (also known as co-trimoxazole or Bactrim; F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland) deposited in the PEG catheter immediately after insertion. The control group received standard prophylaxis consisting of a single intravenous dose of 1.5 g cefuroxime (Zinacef; GlaxoSmithKline, London) administered before insertion of the PEG tube.
main outcome measurePrimary outcome was the occurrence of clinically evident wound infection within 14 days after insertion of the PEG catheter. Secondary outcomes were positive bacterial culture and blood tests (highly sensitive C reactive protein and white blood cell count). All randomised patients were included in an intention to treat analysis.
resultsOf the 234 patients included in this study, 116 were randomly assigned to co-trimoxazole and 118 to cefuroxime. At follow-up 7-14 days after insertion of the PEG catheter, wound infection was found in 10 (8.6%) patients in the co-trimoxazole group and 14 (11.9%) in the cefuroxime group, which corresponds to a percentage point difference of -3.3% (95% confidence interval -10.9% to 4.5%). The per protocol analysis, which comprised 100 patients in each group, gave similar results-10% and 13% infection in the co-trimoxazole and cefuroxime groups, respectively (percentage point difference -3.0%, 95% CI -11.8% to 5.8%). Both these analyses indicate non-inferiority of co-trimoxazole compared with cefuroxime because the upper bounds of the confidence intervals are lower than the pre-determined non-inferiority margin of 15%. Analyses of the secondary outcomes supported this finding.
conclusion20 ml of co-trimoxazole solution deposited in a newly inserted PEG catheter is at least as effective as cefuroxime prophylaxis given intravenously before PEG at preventing wound infections in patients undergoing PEG. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN18677736.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.