Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26699529›Full record

Trial reportBMC pharmacology & toxicology2015

Cefepime versus Ceftriaxone for perioperative systemic antibiotic prophylaxis in elective orthopedic surgery at Bugando Medical Centre Mwanza, Tanzania: a randomized clinical study.

Joel M Marwa, Isidor H Ngayomela, Jeremiah Seni, Stephen E Mshana

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC pharmacology & toxicology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 35% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Open tibial shaft fractures: treatment patterns in sub-Saharan Africa.OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma · 2023
    Article
  5. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Joel M MarwaDepartment of Surgery, Catholic University of Health and Allied Sciences, Box 1464, Mwanza, Tanzania. makengem@yahoo.com.
Isidor H NgayomelaDepartment of Trauma and Orthopedics, Bugando Medical Centre, Box 1370, Mwanza, Tanzania. ihngayomela@gmail.com.
Jeremiah SeniDepartment of Microbiology/Immunology, Catholic University of Health and Allied Sciences (CUHAS), P.O. BOX 1464, Mwanza, Tanzania. senijj80@gmail.com.
Stephen E MshanaDepartment of Microbiology/Immunology, Catholic University of Health and Allied Sciences (CUHAS), P.O. BOX 1464, Mwanza, Tanzania. mshana72@yahoo.com.
Catholic University of Health and Allied Sciences · TZBugando Medical Centre · TZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAntimicrobial prophylaxis reduces the incidence of postoperative wound infections especially among patients undergoing orthopedics surgery. However, there is dearth of information on the clinical effectiveness, spectrum limitations and practical contextual information on third and fourth generation cephalosporins. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of cefepime and ceftriaxone as peri-operative systemic antimicrobial prophylaxis in elective orthopedic surgery in our center.

methodsThis study was a prospective, randomized, open label comparative clinical study of patients undergoing elective orthopedic procedures at the Bugando Medical Centre (BMC) between June 2014 and February 2015. Two hundred thirty participants were enrolled in the study and randomly assigned into Ceftriaxone regimen (group A) or Cefepime regimen (group B). Participants in ceftriaxone or cefepime group received 50 mg/kg up to 2 g single dose perioperative intravenous infusion at least 30 min before incision. Both groups were followed for 30 days using a Center for Disease Control superficial surgical site infection criterion for the outcome. A two-tailed margin of equivalence was set at 5% analyzed on the intent to treat.

resultsAll 230 participants were subjected to final analysis with no patient being lost to follow-up. Superficial surgical site infection occurred in 5 out of 117 (4.3%, 0.6 to 7.9 at 95% CI) patients receiving cefepime compared to 3 out of 113 (2.7%, 0.3 to 5.6 at 95% CI) among patients receiving ceftriaxone regimen. The absolute difference of 1.6% (95% Confidence Interval: -6.3 to 3.1), equivocally lies outside the 5% statistically significant margin of presumed clinical equivalence.

conclusionThe difference between cefepime and ceftriaxone in preventing SSIs following elective clean orthopedic surgery was not statistically significant.

trial registrationPan African Clinical Trial Registry: PACTR201406000803420.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntibiotic ProphylaxisBacteriaCefepimeCeftriaxoneCephalosporinsElective Surgical ProceduresFemaleHumansInfusions, IntravenousMaleMicrobial Sensitivity TestsMiddle AgedOrthopedic ProceduresAnti-Bacterial AgentsCefepimeCeftriaxoneCephalosporins

Identifiers

PMID26699529
PMCPMC4690262
OpenAlexW2240535460

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.