SynthesisInternational urogynecology journal2021
Antibiotic prophylaxis for urodynamic testing in women: a systematic review.
Synthesis in International urogynecology journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Incidence of Urinary Tract Infection After Combined Cystoscopy and Urodynamic Testing: A Prospective Cohort Study.Neurourology and urodynamics · 2026Article
- Do or Don't: Results of a Multinational Survey on Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Urodynamics.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Use of Urodynamics by Gynecologists and Urologists in Brazil.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisUrinary tract infection is the most common complication after urodynamic studies (UDS). Practice guidelines recommend against antibiotic prophylaxis based on an outdated review of the literature, which advised on the premise of "a lack of good quality studies" and based on an assumed low incidence not consistently supported by the literature.
objectivesThis systematic review aims to update the assessment of the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis compared with placebo or no treatment for prevention of urinary tract infection in females over the age of 18 years undergoing UDS.
methodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, COCHRANE, DISSERTATIONS, conference proceedings and clinical trial registries were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials. Two authors independently screened and selected articles, assessed these for quality according to Cochrane guidelines and extracted their data.
resultsA total of 2633 records were screened, identifying three relevant randomized controlled trials. The one study that was critically appraised as being the least likely biased showed a statistically significant effect of antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing bacteriuria post UDS in female patients. The other two studies included in the review did not. None of the studies included were powered to show a significant change in the incidence of urinary tract infection following UDS in female patients receiving antibiotic prophylaxis versus no prophylaxis.
conclusionsSimilar to the 2012 Cochrane review on this subject, this systematic review demonstrated that antibiotic prophylaxis may decrease bacteriuria in women post UDS; however, further research is required to assess its effect on urinary tract infections in this context.
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.