ArticleCanadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada2020
Antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate needle biopsy: Compared efficacy of ciprofloxacin vs. the ciprofloxacin/fosfomycin tromethamine combination.
Article in Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fosfomycin for Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Men Undergoing a Transrectal Prostate Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Pooled it
- Infection rates of trans-perineal versus trans-rectal prostate biopsy: A Middle Eastern tertiary center experience-Time for a change?Arab journal of urology · 2026Article
- Single-dose vs prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis of fosfomycin for transrectal prostate biopsy: a single-center prospective, randomized, controlled trial.Prostate international · 2025Article
- Overcoming the drug resistance barrier: progress in fosfomycin combination therapy against multidrug-resistant pathogens.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Review
- Complication rates of ciprofloxacin alone vs. ciprofloxacin plus fosfomycin for transrectal prostate biopsy.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2024Article
- Current Approach to Complications and Difficulties during Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Prostate Biopsies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Article
- Effectiveness of fosfomycin-based antimicrobial prophylaxis for transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: A Korean multicenter study.Investigative and clinical urology · 2023Article
- Ciprofloxacin Alone vs. Ciprofloxacin plus an Aminoglycoside for the Prevention of Infectious Complications following a Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Prostate Biopsy: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Oral antibiotics perturbation on gut microbiota after prostate biopsy.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022Article
- Comparison of a combined regimen of fosfomycin and ciprofloxacin with ciprofloxacin alone as antimicrobial prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsy in the era of high fluoroquinolone-resistant rectal flora.Prostate international · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSome authors advocate an increase in post-prostate needle biopsy (PNB) infections associated with emergent quinolone resistance in E. coli, urging re-evaluation of antibiotic prophylaxis (antibioprophylaxis). In this study, we compared rates of post-PNB urosepsis associated with two oral regimens of antibioprophylaxis: ciprofloxacin (CIP) vs. ciprofloxacin and fosfomycin tromethamine combination (CIP/FOS).
methodsThis retrospective pre-/post-intervention study included all patients who underwent PNB in two Canadian hospitals from January 2012 to December 2015. The primary outcome was urosepsis within one month of PNB. Urosepsis rates were analyzed according to antibioprophylaxis using log-binomial regression, considering the propensity score weights of collected risk factor data.
resultsWe reviewed 2287 PNB patients. A total of 1090 received CIP and 1197 received CIP/FOS. Urosepsis incidence with CIP was 1.1% (12/1090) and fell to 0.2% (2/1197) with CIP/FOS. Our analysis indicates that CIP/FOS significantly decreased the risk of urosepsis compared to CIP alone (adjusted relative risk [aRR] 0.16; p=0.021). The isolated pathogen was E. coli in 12/14 cases, including seven bacteremias. Among E. coli cases, seven strains were CIP-resistant. Eleven of 12 E. coli, including all CIP-resistant strains, were isolated in patients on CIP alone. One case of B. fragilis bacteremia occurred in the CIP/FOS group. No cases of C. difficile were identified in the three months post-PNB.
conclusionsThe adoption of CIP/FOS antibiotic prophylaxis significantly lowered the rate of post-PNB urosepsis. Conveniently, this regimen is oral, single-dose, and low-cost.
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.