ArticleMedicine2019
Evaluation of different antibiotic prophylaxis strategies for hepatectomy: A network meta-analysis.
Article in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Guidelines for Perioperative Care for Liver Surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society Recommendations 2022.World journal of surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Routine Postoperative Antibiotic Prophylaxis Offers No Benefit after Hepatectomy-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Hepato-Biliopancreatic Surgery-A Systematic Review.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- The efficacy and safety of controlled low central venous pressure for liver resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Gland surgery · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe application of antibiotic prophylaxis for hepatectomy remains uncertain. This research aims to evaluate different antibiotic prophylaxis strategies for hepatectomy based on network meta-analysis.
methodsLiterature retrieval was conducted in globally recognized databases, namely, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central, to address relative randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating antibiotic prophylaxis strategies for hepatectomy. Relative parametric data, including surgical site infection (SSI), remote site infection (RSI) and total infection (TI), were quantitatively pooled and estimated based on the Bayesian theorem. The values of surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) probabilities regarding each parameter were calculated and ranked. Node-splitting analysis was performed to test the inconsistency of the main results, and publication bias was assessed by examining the funnel plot symmetry. Additional pairwise meta-analyses were performed to validate the differences between respective strategies at the statistical level.
resultsAfter a detailed review, a total of 5 RCTs containing 4 different strategies were included for the network meta-analysis. The results indicated that the application of no antibiotics possessed the highest possibility of having the best clinical effects on SSI (SUCRA, 0.56), RSI (SUCRA, 0.46) and TI (SUCRA, 0.61). Moreover, node-splitting analysis and funnel plot symmetries illustrated no inconsistencies in the current study. Additional pairwise meta-analyses determined that additional and long-duration applications had no clinical benefit.
conclusionBased on current evidence, we concluded that antibiotic prophylaxis did not reveal clinical benefit in hepatectomy. However, more relative trials and statistical evidence are still needed.
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.