ArticleCentral European journal of urology2020
Cefixime versus prulifloxacin as a prophylactic treatment for prostate biopsy: a randomized study.
Article in Central European journal of urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of antibiotic prophylaxis after flexible cystoscopy to prevent symptomatic urinary tract infection: a randomized controlled trial.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Trial
- Comparison of Infectious Complications After Transrectal Prostate Biopsy Under Two Antibiotic Prophylaxis Regimens: Ceftriaxone Plus Cefixime Versus Ciprofloxacin Plus Gentamicin.International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionUrinary tract infections may be a severe complication after prostate biopsy. The aim of our study is to investigate the efficacy of cefixime versus prulifloxacin, as a prophylactic treatment in the era of fluoroquinolone resistance. MATERIAL AND
methodsIn this prospective randomized trial, patients were allocated into two groups. In Group A, patients received cefixime 400 mg p.o./day, while in Group B, prulifoxacin 600 mg p.o./day, both for three days, starting the day before procedure. Eligible for the study were men with a high prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and/or a positive rectal examination. Exclusion criteria were allergy to cefixime or fluoroquinolones, low glomerular filtration rate and drug-resistance to these antibiotics. Patients were followed-up for seven days.
resultsFinally, 120 patients were divided into 2 groups of 60 patients with a mean age of 68.6 years. A total of 16 (13.3%) men had already undergone another biopsy in the past, while 18 (15%) had received prulifloxacin and 8 (6.67%) cefixime, at least once in the last three months. During follow-up, hospital admission due to a severe urinary tract infection (UTI) was required in 2 of 60 (1.3%) and 1 of 60 (1.67%) patients from Group B and A respectively. The bacterial specimens detected in those urine cultures were resistant to prulifloxacin or cefixime. Among the remaining 117 patients (97.5%), nobody presented with a UTI.
conclusionsProphylactic cefixime could be suggested as effective in preventing severe UTIs after prostate biopsy in the era of high bacterial resistance to fluoroquinolones.
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.