Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32734477›Full record

SynthesisTechniques in coloproctology2020

Antibiotic prophylaxis in colorectal surgery: are oral, intravenous or both best and is mechanical bowel preparation necessary?

R L Nelson, M Hassan, M D Grant

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Preparing the Bowel for Surgery in the Era of Microbiome Sciences.The Surgical clinics of North America · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. 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 · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Oral antibiotics and mechanical bowel preps: do they have to come together?International journal of colorectal disease · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

R L NelsonDivision of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Illinois School of Public Health, Room 983, 1603 West Taylor, Chicago, IL, 60612-4394, USA. altohorn@uic.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-1344-9862
M HassanUniversity of Illinois at Chicago Honors College, Chicago, IL, USA.
M D GrantDivision of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Illinois School of Public Health, Room 983, 1603 West Taylor, Chicago, IL, 60612-4394, USA.
Illinois Department of Public Health · USUniversity of Illinois Chicago · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Colorectal SurgeryDigestive System Surgical ProceduresAntibiotic ProphylaxisElective Surgical ProceduresHumansSurgical Wound InfectionAntibiotic prophylaxisColorectal surgeryIntravenousMechanical bowel preparationOralSurgical site infection

Identifiers

PMID32734477
OpenAlexW3046213090

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.