ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2018
Topical rectal antiseptic at time of prostate biopsy: how a resident patient safety project has evolved into institutional practice.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety profile of chlorhexidine and povidone-iodine in rectal mucosa cleansing during prostate biopsy.Frontiers in urology · 2023Article
- Urology Resident Involvement in Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Activities.Current urology reports · 2020Review
- Effect of rectal mucosa cleansing on acute prostatitis during prostate biopsy: A randomized prospective study.Turkish journal of urology · 2020Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo report outcomes 5 years after a resident quality initiative incorporated topical rectal antiseptic into our ultrasound-guided prostate needle biopsy (TRUS PNB) protocol.
methodsA chart review was conducted on 1007 men who underwent TRUS PNB between 2010 and 2017. Comparison groups include those who received a topical rectal antiseptic (N = 437) compared to those who did not (N = 570). Povidone-iodine (N = 303) or 4% chlorhexidine solution without alcohol (N = 134) were topical agents. Outcomes of interest included post-biopsy infection (urinary tract infection and/or sepsis), hospital admission, and need for ICU monitoring.
resultsMedian age and PSA of men included in this study were 64 years and 12 ng/mL. Almost 90% of patients were Caucasian, 13% had diabetes, 3% were on immunosuppression, 32% had at least one prior biopsy, 14% received antibiotics, and 7% were hospitalized in the past 6 months. 22 patients (2.2%) developed a post-biopsy infection with a significant reduction in the group receiving topical rectal antiseptic (0.8 vs. 3.3%, p = 0.01). Post-biopsy UTI rates (p = 0.04) and hospital admission (p = 0.03) were also lower in the topical antiseptic group with trends to reduction in sepsis and need for ICU monitoring.
conclusionsWhat started as a resident quality safety project 5 years ago has demonstrated a reduction in infections and hospital admissions following TRUS PNB. Our institutional practice now routinely uses povidone-iodine or chlorhexidine as an adjunct to oral quinolones for TRUS PNB perioperative prophylaxis.
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.