ArticleSpringerPlus2016
Analysis of antibiotics selection in patients undergoing appendectomy in a Chinese tertiary care hospital.
Article in SpringerPlus, 2016. 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.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo investigate the status of antibiotics use in acute appendicitis patients who undergo appendectomy in a Chinese tertiary care hospital.
methodsA retrospective analysis of 93 patients who underwent appendectomy from June 1, 2011 to May 30, 2012 and had recorded use of intravenous antibiotics. We defined simple appendicitis and suppurative appendicitis as mild appendicitis. Gangrenous appendicitis and perforated appendicitis were classified as advanced appendicitis. The occurrence of advanced appendicitis, postoperative complications and length of hospital stay were the three major end points for outcomes analysis.
results100 % of the patients received antibiotics therapy before and after operation. 45 patients received Fluoroquinolones (48.4 %), 41 patients received Cephalosporins (44.1 %) and 7 patients received Carbapenems (7.5 %). We found no statistical difference between antibiotics selection and the occurrence of advanced appendicitis (P = 0.3337). Both the monovariate analysis and multivariate analysis showed no statistical difference between antibiotics selection and the postoperative complications (P > 0.05). The average stay of patients receiving Fluoroquinolones was 2.6 days shorter than patients who received Cephalosporins (P = 0.0085).
conclusionIt is a lack of a standardized guideline for antibiotics selection in our hospital. All the antibiotics prescription were empirical. We tended to choose high levels of antibiotics, pay insufficient attention to the anaerobic bacteria and have a long duration of antibiotics therapy. We also found that antibiotics selection bore no relationship with the occurrence of advanced appendicitis and postoperative complications. Fluoroquinolones may lead to a shorter hospital stay, but this result may also be affected by the fewer underlying diseases and lower severity of the patients.
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.