ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2014
Is antibiotic prophylaxis necessary before midurethral sling procedures for female stress incontinence? A decision analysis.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prophylactic antibiotics for preventing infection after continence surgery in women with stress urinary incontinence.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Impact of per-operative antibiotics on the urinary tract infection rate following mid-urethral sling surgery for urinary incontinence: a randomized controlled trial.International urogynecology journal · 2020Trial
- Update on complications of synthetic suburethral slings.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyReview
- Infection Prophylaxis in Urological Diagnostic and Surgical Procedures - A narrative review and recommendations.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisA recent randomized controlled trial (RCT) with and without prophylactic antibiotics (pABX) for midurethral slings (MUS) was terminated early owing to lower than predicted infectious complications in both groups. Adequate power required an unattainable sample size. Because of low infectious risks, omitting pABX may be justified. Since an RCT was not feasible, we aimed to use decision analysis modeling to determine if pABX are necessary for MUS.
methodsWe created a decision analysis model comparing 1-year quality adjusted life years (QALYs) between women who do and do not receive pABX for MUS. The model included complications that might differ depending on whether antibiotics were given, such as allergic reaction to pABX (mild/severe), vulvovaginal candidiasis, urinary tract infections including pyelonephritis, pseudomembranous colitis, wound infection, and mesh erosion. Multiple one-way sensitivity analyses confirmed model robustness.
resultsOne year after MUS, women who did not receive pABX had higher average QALYs than pABX (0.989 vs 0.977). This difference is less than published minimally important differences (MID) for utilities, suggesting that the strategies are comparable. Ultimately, pABX increased some complications and reduced others with an overall minimal effect on outcomes. Very few thresholds were identified, indicating model robustness and strengthening our conclusions.
conclusionsWomen had slightly higher overall QALY when pABX were not given, but not greater than the MID. Since infectious complications are rare, our model suggests that pABX might be an unnecessary precaution because of similar outcomes with and without pABX.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23903818What 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.