ArticleHNO2015
[Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis during standard interventions in ear, nose and throat medicine].
Article in HNO, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antibiotics in Septorhinoplasty: Routine Necessity or Unnecessary Precaution? A Nationwide Propensity-Score Matched Retrospective Cohort Study.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe majority of standard interventions in otorhinolaryngology are classified as "clean contaminated" according to international classifications; correspondingly, no generally accepted recommendations regarding perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis (pAP) exist. The value of such pAP for these interventions remains unclear. Aim of the study was to assess the effects of pAP in selected standard otorhinolaryngologic procedures. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn August 2012 a standard operating procedure (SOP) was implemented, which lead to termination of routine pAP for the majority of standard operations. All patients included in this retrospective study had undergone a standard procedure (tonsil, septum or paranasal sinus surgery) during a period either 6 months before or 6 months after the inauguration of the SOP. The charts were reviewed for demographic factors, postoperative complications and length of hospital stay.
resultsThe group before the inauguration of the SOP consisted of 316 patients (132 female, 184 male), aged 30±20 years. The group after the inauguration comprised 308 patients (128 female, 180 male), aged 31±19 years. For the entire patient collective, the termination of pAP led to a statistically significant increase in postoperative antibiotic treatment for all types of interventions tested. A statistically significant change in noninflammatory complications or the length of hospital stay was not detected. DISCUSSION: The termination of pAP during standard procedures in otorhinolaryngology is associated with an increase in postoperative antibiotic treatment but has no effect on other postoperative complications tested or the length of hospital stay.
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.