SynthesisTechniques in coloproctology2020
Antibiotic prophylaxis in colorectal surgery: are oral, intravenous or both best and is mechanical bowel preparation necessary?
Synthesis in Techniques in coloproctology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antibiotic Prophylaxis Strategies and Surgical Site Infections in Colorectal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.JAMA network open · 2026Pooled it
- Is There a Role for Mechanical and Oral Antibiotic Bowel Preparation for Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Colorectal Surgery? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2023Pooled it
- Preoperative combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation for preventing complications in elective colorectal surgery.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Optimizing Surgical Antibiotic Prophylaxis in the Era of Antimicrobial Resistance: A Position Paper from the Italian Multidisciplinary Society for the Prevention of Healthcare-Associated Infections (SIMPIOS).Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Preparing the Bowel for Surgery in the Era of Microbiome Sciences.The Surgical clinics of North America · 2025Review
- Prior antibiotics exposure is associated with an elevated risk of surgical site infections, including anastomotic leakage, after colon cancer but not rectal cancer surgery: A register-based study of 38,839 patients.International journal of cancer · 2025Article
- Oral antibiotic prophylaxis induces changes in the microbiology of surgical site infection after colorectal surgery. A matched comparative study.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2025Article
- The implementation of complex infection control bundles to prevent colorectal surgical site infections: a survey of SHEA research network hospitals.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2025Article
- The Impact of Mechanical Bowel Preparation and Oral Antibiotics in Colorectal Cancer Surgery (MECCA Study): A Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Mechanical bowel preparation in elective colorectal surgery: a propensity score-matched analysis of the Italian colorectal anastomotic leakage (iCral) study group prospective cohorts.Updates in surgery · 2024Article
- Article
- A Network Meta-Analysis and GRADE Assessment of the Effect of Preoperative Oral Antibiotics with and Without Mechanical Bowel Preparation on Surgical Site Infection Rate in Colorectal Surgery.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2022Article
- Oral Antibiotic Prophylaxis Reduces Surgical Site Infection and Anastomotic Leakage in Patients Undergoing Colorectal Cancer Surgery.Biomedicines · 2021Review
- Oral antibiotics and mechanical bowel preps: do they have to come together?International journal of colorectal disease · 2021Article
- Bowel preparation in colorectal surgery: the day of reckoning is here.The British journal of surgery · 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe benefit of adding oral antibiotic prophylaxis (OA) to intravenous prophylaxis (IV) in elective colorectal surgery to prevent surgical site infection (SSI) and whether the benefit of OA requires a mechanical bowel cleansing (MBP) are assessed in a systematic review. Meta-analyses compare randomized trials of IV versus IV plus OA, both with MBP; OA versus IV plus OA, both again with MBP; OA plus IV in studies randomizing patients to MBP or no MBP; and IV versus IV plus OA in patients with no MBP.
methodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched for eligible studies from 1965 to April 1, 2020. The outcome assessed was SSI, superficial and deep, but not organ space. For each included study, risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool version 1. For each comparison, meta-analysis was performed from data from eligible studies to obtain a summary effect and heterogeneity using RevMan. Sensitivity analyses were performed excluding studies of poor quality. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE for each comparison.
resultsSixty-one studies published in 1971-2020 from 55 publications reporting 12,297 patients were eligible for inclusion. A total of 36 studies compared IV to OA plus IV with MBP. The risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for SSI with oral and IV vs. IV alone are 0.47, 0.40-0.56. The RR in 19 studies for IV plus OA versus OA alone is 0.48, 0.38-0.62. The RR for OA plus IV with MBP versus without MBP in 5 studies is 1.17, 0.84-1.64. The RR for OA plus IV versus IV alone when no bowel prep was used in two studies is 0.36, 0.18-0.72. RRs were similar in sensitivity analyses. The GRADE is high for the first two comparisons, moderate for the 3rd, and low for the 4th due to imprecision and heterogeneity.
conclusionsCombined OA and IV is superior to either alone in preventing SSI. The certainty of evidence is such that further research is unlikely to alter this relationship when MBP is used. In randomized trials of MBP, OA plus IV shows no benefit from MBP versus no MBP. The last comparison shows in just two studies that as in the first meta-analysis, but in the absence of MBP, combined OA plus IV is also superior to IV alone.
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.