ArticleArab journal of urology2016
Fosfomycin antimicrobial prophylaxis for transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate: A prospective randomised study.
Article in Arab journal of urology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fosfomycin for Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Men Undergoing a Transrectal Prostate Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Pooled it
- Fosfomycin vs. quinolone-based antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2018Pooled it
- Infection risks and biopsy-associated complications in prostate cancer diagnosis: a review of recent literatures.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2026Review
- The Impact of Antibiotic Prophylaxis on Antibiotic Resistance, Clinical Outcomes, and Costs in Adult Hemato-Oncological and Surgical Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Single-dose vs prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis of fosfomycin for transrectal prostate biopsy: a single-center prospective, randomized, controlled trial.Prostate international · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of fosfomycin-based antimicrobial prophylaxis for transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: A Korean multicenter study.Investigative and clinical urology · 2023Article
- Comparison of a combined regimen of fosfomycin and ciprofloxacin with ciprofloxacin alone as antimicrobial prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsy in the era of high fluoroquinolone-resistant rectal flora.Prostate international · 2021Article
- Current routines for antibiotic prophylaxis prior to transrectal prostate biopsy: a national survey to all urology clinics in Sweden.F1000Research · 2020Article
- Fosfomycin trometamol vs ciprofloxacin for antibiotic prophylaxis before transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsy: A meta-analysis of clinical studies.Arab journal of urology · 2019Article
- Performance Validation of Selective Screening Agars for Guiding Antimicrobial Prophylaxis in Patients Undergoing Prostate Biopsy.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2018Article
- [Prophylaxis of infectious complications following prostate biopsy].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2017Review
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
objectivesTo compare the incidence of infectious complications after single-dose fosfomycin vs. standard fluoroquinolone (FQ)-based prophylaxis in patients undergoing transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate (TRUSBx), as there is an alarming trend worldwide of increasing resistance to FQs limiting their suitability as appropriate prophylaxis for TRUSBx. PATIENTS AND
methodsA prospective study was conducted in 412 consecutive patients undergoing TRUSBx between February 2012 and June 2015. Patients were randomly divided into two groups; Group 1 (202 patients) who received single-dose fosfomycin (3 g, orally) 1-2 h before TRUSBx and Group 2 (210 patients) who received routine empirical prophylaxis in the form of oral ciprofloxacin 500 mg and metronidazole 500 mg at least 1 h before TRUSBx and continued this twice daily for 3 days before TRUSBx. We recorded all febrile and afebrile urinary tract infections (UTIs) within the 4 weeks after the procedure.
resultsThere was no difference in baseline demographics between the two groups. Total infectious complications occurred in four (1.9%) and 18 (8.5%) patients in Groups 1 and 2, respectively, which was statistically significant (P = 0.001). Escherichia coli was the most common isolated pathogen from urine cultures in all patients with infectious complications (68%). The other isolated bacterium, Klebsiella pneumoniae, was detected in four patients (18%). Urine cultures revealed FQ-resistant strains (73%), all of which were extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing E. coli and K. pneumoniae.
conclusionsSingle-dose fosfomycin before TRUSBx significantly reduces infectious complications when compared with standard therapy. Fosfomycin is an effective agent for antimicrobial prophylaxis in patients undergoing TRUSBx, particularly in populations where FQ resistance is common.
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.