SynthesisMedicine2019
The clinical effects of antibiotic prophylaxis for hysteroscopic procedures: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHysteroscopic procedures were widely applied but the clinical effects of antibiotic prophylaxis for these operations were not specifically addressed. In current study, we aimed to investigate the role of prophylactic antibiotics in hysteroscopic procedures by meta-analysis.
methodsWe conducted literature retrieval in electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central, to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the clinical effects of antibiotic prophylaxis for hysteroscopic procedures. The postoperative infection rate was selected for pooled estimation. The I index statistic was used to assess heterogeneity. Publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots and Egger test. Sensitivity analysis based on different subcategories was conducted to examine the stability of the main results.
resultsFour RCTs including 2221 patients were identified for the final quantitative analysis. Pooled estimation indicated no significant difference in infection rate between the antibiotic prophylaxis group and control group (test for OR: Z = 0.50, P = .616; 95% CI: 0.987-1.008). Sensitivity analysis based on surgical procedure, antibiotic application, follow-up time and administration time revealed similar results.
conclusionBased on current objective evidence, we conclude that antibiotic prophylaxis exhibits no clinical benefit for hysteroscopic procedures. Therefore, it is not recommended. Meanwhile, more high-quality RCTs are needed to support our conclusion.
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.