ArticleThe Indian journal of surgery2015
Intravenous Versus Oral Antibiotic Prophylaxis Efficacy for Elective Laparoscopic Cholecystectomies: a Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in The Indian journal of surgery, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the present prospective randomized controlled trial is to compare the effectiveness of intravenous and oral antibiotic prophylaxis for cost and surgical site infection in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Three hundred twenty patients were split into two groups as to include 160 patients in each, and they were evaluated in a prospective and randomized fashion. While one group was subjected to 1 g cefazolin via intravenous route during anesthesia induction, other group received 1 g cephalexin monohydrate via oral route 1 h prior to the operation. Demographic findings and operation results of the patients were compared by analyses. Our 320 patients (278 females and 42 males) received elective cholecystectomy and were followed up for a period of 6-26 months. Each group had 160 patients. Both groups were similar with regard to demographic characteristics and inclusion criteria. Among all, only five (1.5 %) cases demonstrated postoperative surgical site infection. Surgical site infection at postoperative period was determined in three (1.8 %) cases of intravenous prophylaxis group and two (1.2 %) cases of oral prophylaxis group. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of surgical site infection. Oral antibiotic prophylaxis can be used in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy prophylaxis due to its cost-effective, reliable nature, and low surgical site infection rate.
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.