Trial reportPloS one2015
Timing of Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Elective Caesarean Delivery: A Multi-Center Randomized Controlled Trial and Meta-Analysis.
Trial report in PloS one, 2015. 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, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Neonatal sepsis definitions from randomised clinical trials.Pediatric research · 2023Pooled it
- Influence of different timeframes of antibiotic application on postoperative infections in patients with caesarean section.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Compliance with antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines in caesarean delivery: a retrospective, drug utilization study (indication-prescription type) at an Ecuadorian hospital.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis before skin incision with that after umbilical cord clamping in elective caesarean delivery.
methodsWe conducted a randomized open-label controlled trial with two parallel arms at three hospitals in western China. Participants meeting the inclusion criteria received antibiotics 30-60 minutes before skin incision while others received antibiotics after umbilical cords clamping. For the meta-analysis, studies were identified from the database of PUBMED, Cochrane Library and EMbase and assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.
resultsFour hundred and ten patients were randomized to receive antibiotics before skin incision (n = 205) or after umbilical cords clamping (n = 205). There was no difference in the incidence of postpartum endometritis (RR = 0.34, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.24), wound infection (RR = 3.06, 95% CI 0.13 to 74.69) and total puerperal morbidity (RR = 1.02, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.22). No increase in the incidence of neonatal sepsis (RR = 0.34, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.24), septic workup (RR = 0.41, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.07), or intermediate NICU admission (RR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.26) was observed. The meta-analysis involving nine RCTs showed that no statistically significant difference was found in terms of the risk of postpartum endometritis (RR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.39, 1.36), wound infection (RR = 0.80, 95%CI 0.55, 1.17), or puerperal morbidity (RR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.70, 1.13). No increase in the incidence of neonatal sepsis (RR = 0.65, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.20), septic workup (RR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.54), or intermediate NICU admission (RR = 0.91, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.18) was observed.
conclusionFor elective caesarean delivery, the effects of antibiotic prophylaxis before skin incision and after umbilical cord clamping were equal. Both antibiotic prophylaxis before skin incision and that after umbilical cord clamping were recommended for elective caesarean delivery. The outcome of further studies should address both maternal and neonatal infectious morbidity as well as long-term neonatal follow up.
trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR-TRC-11001853.
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.