Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31830316›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2019

Prophylactic antibiotics for penetrating abdominal trauma.

Martin Brand, Andrew Grieve

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Laparoscopic surgery for trans-anal barotrauma: a case report.World journal of emergency medicine · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. [Penetrating abdominal trauma].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Martin BrandUniversity of Pretoria, Department of Surgery, Pretoria, South Africa, 0001.
Andrew GrieveUniversity of the Witwatersrand, General Surgery/Trauma Unit, PO Box 91155, Auckland Park, Johannesburg, Gauteng, South Africa, 2006.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPenetrating abdominal trauma occurs when the peritoneal cavity is breached. Routine laparotomy for penetrating abdominal injuries began in the 1800s, with antibiotics first being used in World War II to combat septic complications associated with these injuries. This practice was marked with a reduction in sepsis-related mortality and morbidity. Whether prophylactic antibiotics are required in the prevention of infective complications following penetrating abdominal trauma is controversial, however, as no randomised placebo controlled trials have been published to date. There has also been debate about the timing of antibiotic prophylaxis. In 1972 Fullen noted a 7% to 11% post-surgical infection rate with pre-operative antibiotics, a 33% to 57% infection rate with intra-operative antibiotic administration and 30% to 70% infection rate with only post-operative antibiotic administration. Current guidelines state there is sufficient class I evidence to support the use of a single pre-operative broad spectrum antibiotic dose, with aerobic and anaerobic cover, and continuation (up to 24 hours) only in the event of a hollow viscus perforation found at exploratory laparotomy.

objectivesTo assess the benefits and harms of prophylactic antibiotics administered for penetrating abdominal injuries for the reduction of the incidence of septic complications, such as septicaemia, intra-abdominal abscesses and wound infections. SEARCH

methodsSearches were not restricted by date, language or publication status. We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2019, issue 7 of 12), MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), ISI Web of Science: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), ISI Web of Science: Conference Proceedings Citation Index- Science (CPCI-S) and PubMed. Searches were last conducted on 23 July 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials of antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with penetrating abdominal trauma versus no antibiotics or placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors screened the literature search results independently. MAIN

resultsWe identified no trials meeting the inclusion criteria. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere is currently no information from randomised controlled trials to support or refute the use of antibiotics for patients with penetrating abdominal trauma.

Indexed as

Antibiotic ProphylaxisAbdominal InjuriesAnti-Bacterial AgentsHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSepsisSurgical Wound InfectionWound InfectionWounds, PenetratingAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID31830316
PMCPMC6907398

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.