ArticleAmerican journal of obstetrics and gynecology2018
Applying surgical antimicrobial standards in cesarean deliveries.
Article in American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of postoperative oral administration of cephalexin and metronidazole on surgical site infection among obese women undergoing cesarean section: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study-phase III.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2022Trial
- Antibiotic Concentrations After Massive Transfusion (ACME) Study: A Review of the Literature on Antibiotic Dosing During Transfusion and Study Protocol.Journal of special operations medicine : a peer reviewed journal for SOF medical professionals · 2025Article
- Vaginal Cleansing and Post-Cesarean Infectious Morbidity? Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.Biomedicines · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Antimicrobial prophylaxis practices are critical to surgical site infection risk-reduction strategies. Included in these practices is antibiotic redosing following prolonged procedures or after large blood losses. Guidelines have been published by several professional associations, with most endorsing repeat antibiotic administration after an estimated blood loss of 1500 mL or following 2 half-lives of the select agent. These conventions have been widely adopted by surgeons with the exception of obstetricians at the time of cesarean delivery. This Viewpoint explores existing guidelines, reviews the data for these recommendations, and questions the tradition of abstinence from redosing in cesarean deliveries despite the burden of infection in this cohort.
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.