ArticleTrials2018
Prevention of Infections in Cardiac Surgery study (PICS): study protocol for a pragmatic cluster-randomized factorial crossover pilot trial.
Article in Trials, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT02285140 (Prevention of Infections in Cardiac Surgery), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Prevention of Infections in Cardiac Surgery: a Cluster-randomized Factorial Cross-over Trial
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interventions to prevent surgical site infection in adults undergoing cardiac surgery.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Prevention of Infections in Cardiac Surgery (PICS)-Prevena Study - A pilot/vanguard factorial cluster cross-over RCT.PloS one · 2025Trial
- Design, implementation, and inferential issues associated with clinical trials that rely on data in electronic medical records: a narrative review.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Review
- Review
- Implementing stakeholder engagement to explore alternative models of consent: An example from the PREP-IT trials.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA wide range of prophylactic antibiotic regimens are used for patients undergoing open-heart cardiac surgery. This reflects clinical equipoise in choice and duration of antibiotic agents. Although individual-level randomized control trials (RCT) are considered the gold standard when evaluating the efficacy of an intervention, this approach is highly resource intensive and a cluster RCT can be more appropriate for testing clinical effectiveness in a real-world setting. METHODS/
designWe are conducting a factorial cluster-randomized crossover pilot trial in cardiac surgery patients to evaluate the feasibility of this design for a definite trial to evaluate the optimal duration and choice of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis. Specifically, we will evaluate: (a) the non-inferiority of a single preoperative dose compared to prolonged prophylaxis and (b) the potential superiority of adding vancomycin to routine cefazolin in terms of preventing deep and organ/space sternal surgical site infections (s-SSIs). There are four strategies: (i) short-term cefazolin, (ii) long-term cefazolin, (iii) short-term cefazolin + vancomycin, and (iv) long-term cefazolin + vancomycin. These strategies are delivered in a different order in each health-care center participating in the trial. The centers are randomized to an order, and the current strategy becomes the standard operating procedure in that center during the study. The three feasibility outcomes include: (1) the proportion of patients receiving preoperative, intra-operative, and postoperative antibiotics according to the study protocol, (2) the proportion of completed follow-up assessments, and (3) a full and final assessment of the incidence of s-SSIs by the outcome adjudication committee. DISCUSSION: We believe that a cluster-randomized factorial crossover trial is an effective and feasible design for these research questions, allowing an evaluation of the clinical effectiveness in a real-world setting. A waiver of individual informed consent was considered appropriate by the research ethics boards in each participating site in Canada as long as an information letter with an opt-out option was provided. However, a waiver of consent was not approved at two sites in Germany and Switzerland, respectively.
trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov, NCT02285140 . Registered on 15 October 2015.
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.