Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25525481›Full record

ArticleEplasty2014

A systematic review of infection rates and associated antibiotic duration in acellular dermal matrix breast reconstruction.

Brett T Phillips, Muath Bishawi, Alexander B Dagum, Duc T Bui, Sami U Khan

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Eplasty, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Different Surgical Approaches to the Treatment of Cleft Palate Fistulae as Perceived by Cleft Surgeons.The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Breast reconstruction during the COVID-19 pandemic in resource-limited settings.GMS Interdisciplinary plastic and reconstructive surgery DGPW · 2021
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. [Analysis of risk factors related to periprosthetic infection after breast augmentation].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2019
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Brett T PhillipsDivision of Plastic, Maxillofacial, & Oral Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC.
Muath BishawiDivision of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC.
Alexander B DagumDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Stony Brook University Hospital, Stony Brook University School of Medicine, Stony Brook, NY.
Duc T BuiDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Stony Brook University Hospital, Stony Brook University School of Medicine, Stony Brook, NY.
Sami U KhanDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Stony Brook University Hospital, Stony Brook University School of Medicine, Stony Brook, NY.
Duke Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionReported infection rates in breast reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) can exceed 31%. Prophylactic antibiotics remain controversial due to the absence of evidence-based literature. The purpose of this study was to examine published antibiotic regimens and their associated infection rates in this population.

methodsSystematic electronic searches were performed in PubMed, OVID, and the Cochrane databases for studies that reported on prophylactic antibiotic use and infection in patients undergoing ADM breast reconstruction. Two independent authors reviewed studies between 1970 and 2012 for inclusion and data extraction.

resultsA total of 863 studies were identified and abstracts reviewed. A total of 24 articles were included, with 2148 patients and 3189 ADM reconstructions. Mean infection rates varied between 0% and 31.25%, with a combined average of 11.59%. When comparing antibiotic protocols of less than 24 hours and more than 24 hours, the average infection rate was 2.48% and 13.21%, respectively.

conclusionThe current literature lacks consensus on the necessary duration for postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis following breast reconstruction. The potential increased risk of infection associated with ADM remains controversial. Because of the lack of supportive evidence, we do not recommend prolonged postoperative antibiotics in ADM breast reconstruction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic level III evidence.

Indexed as

acellular dermal matrixADMantibioticsbreast reconstructioninfection

Identifiers

PMID25525481
PMCPMC4233926
OpenAlexW312848856

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.