ArticleWorld journal of urology2017
Transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy in the era of increasing fluoroquinolone resistance: prophylaxis with single-dose ertapenem.
Article in World journal of urology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Transperineal (TP) Versus Transrectal (TR) Prostate Biopsy: Efficacy, Safety, and Systemic Challenges-A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Patient-reported outcome measures for pain and tolerability of transperineal prostate biopsy under local anaesthesia using the PrecisionPoint™ transperineal access system: A prospective study for a real-world patient experience.Investigative and clinical urology · 2025Article
- Impact of a Switch From Ciprofloxacin to Ceftriaxone Prophylaxis on Infectious Complications After Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Biopsy of the Prostate.Open forum infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Risk assessment of multi-factorial complications after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: a single institutional retrospective cohort study.International journal of clinical oncology · 2021Article
- Local versus general anesthesia transperineal prostate biopsy: Tolerability, cancer detection, and complications.BJUI compass · 2021Article
- Transperineal prostate biopsy: The modern gold standard to prostate cancer diagnosis.Turkish journal of urology · 2021Review
- Infectious complications of prostate biopsy: winning battles but not war.World journal of urology · 2020Review
- Can transrectal prostate ultrasound compete with multiparametric MRI in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer?Translational andrology and urology · 2020Review
- Controversies in MR targeted biopsy: alone or combined, cognitive versus software-based fusion, transrectal versus transperineal approach?World journal of urology · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of the study was to compare single-dose ertapenem (ERT) with the 3-day regime of ciprofloxacin (CIP) for prophylaxis of possible infections following transrectal prostate biopsy.
methodsData from a consecutive group of 542 patients from January 2012 to January 2017 were retrospectively analysed. As preinterventional prophylaxis patient group A (179) received 500 mg CIP twice a day for three days, beginning on the day before the biopsy (until June 2013); group B (363) received a single dose of ERT 60 min prior to intervention. The first follow-up examination for all patients was between post-intervention days 2 and 3. The second follow-up examination was between day 15 and 30 following biopsy. Urine was cultured in all cases and any adverse drug reactions (ADRs) related to the antibiotic treatment were noted. We also recorded all clinically relevant morbidities requiring intervention (ischuria, macrohaematuria, symptomatic urinary tract infections and urosepsis), as well as those not requiring active intervention (macrohaematuria, decreased urinary stream, pain, haemospermia). The main study criterion was the symptomatic urinary tract infection rate and ADRs.
resultsAll 542 biopsied patients could be included in the study and the drop-out rate was zero. There were no significant differences between groups A and B with regards to complications not requiring intervention. There was, however, a significant reduction from 14.5% (group A) to 0.8% (group B) in infectious complications. This showed a significant correlation in favour of ERT (p < 0.001). Furthermore, in the ERT group there was also a distinct and significant reduction (p > 0.001) in the number of patients with bacteriuria (>10e4 cfu per ml urine) without fever (0.5%) compared to the CIP group (12.3%).
conclusionA single-dose of 1 g of intravenous ERT applied 1 h before a scheduled transrectal prostate biopsy is a safe option and provides effective protection against infection-related complications arising from surgery.
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.