ArticleTrauma surgery & acute care open2021
Empiric antifungals do not decrease the risk for organ space infection in patients with perforated peptic ulcer.
Article in Trauma surgery & acute care open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Detection of Candida spp. from peritoneal swabs indicate worse outcome in patients with perforated peptic ulcer: revisiting a longstanding debate.BMC surgery · 2026Observational
- Should Empiric Anti-Fungals Be Administered Routinely for All Patients with Perforated Peptic Ulcers? A Critical Review of the Existing Literature.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionInfection control in patients with perforated peptic ulcers (PPU) commonly includes empiric antifungals (AF). We investigated the variation in the use of empiric AF and explored the association between their use and the subsequent development of organ space infection (OSI).
methodsThis was a secondary analysis of a multicenter, case-control study of patients treated for PPU at nine institutions between 2011 and 2018. Microbiology and utilization of empiric AF, defined as AF administered within 24 hours from the index surgery, were recorded. Patients who received empiric AF were compared with those who did not. The primary outcome was OSI and secondary outcome was OSI with growth of
resultsA total of 554 patients underwent a surgical procedure for PPU and had available timing of AF administration. The median age was 57 years and 61% were male. Laparoscopy was used in 24% and omental patch was the most common procedure performed (78%). Overall, 239 (43%) received empiric AF. There was a large variation in the use of empiric AF among participating centers, ranging from 25% to 68%. The overall incidence of OSI was 14% (77/554) and was similar for patients who did or did not receive empiric AF. The adjusted OR for development of OSI for patients who received empiric AF was 1.04 (95% CI 0.64 to 1.70), adjusted p=0.86. The overall incidence of OSI with growth of
conclusionFor patients undergoing surgery for PPU, the use of empiric AF did not yield any significant clinical advantage in preventing OSI, even those due to STUDY TYPE: Original article, case series. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
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.