Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34668964›Full record

ArticleJAMA surgery2022

Strategies for Antibiotic Administration for Bowel Preparation Among Patients Undergoing Elective Colorectal Surgery: A Network Meta-analysis.

John C Woodfield, Kari Clifford, Barry Schmidt, Gregory A Turner, Mohammad A Amer, John L McCall

Open access · bronzeAbstract readNetwork Meta-AnalysisComment
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Surgical site infections: a comprehensive review.Journal of trauma and injury · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Surgical considerations for the "perfect" colorectal anastomosis.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2023
    Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

John C WoodfieldDepartment of Surgical Sciences, Otago Medical School, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Kari CliffordDepartment of Surgical Sciences, Otago Medical School, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Barry SchmidtDepartment of Surgical Sciences, Otago Medical School, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Gregory A TurnerDepartment of General Surgery, Christchurch Hospital, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Mohammad A AmerDepartment of General Surgery, Christchurch Hospital, Christchurch, New Zealand.
John L McCallMcKenzie Chair in Clinical Science, Department of Surgical Sciences, Otago Medical School, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
University of Otago · NZChristchurch Hospital · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: There are discrepancies in guidelines on preparation for colorectal surgery. While intravenous (IV) antibiotics are usually administered, the use of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP), enemas, and/or oral antibiotics (OA) is controversial. Objective: To summarize all data from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that met selection criteria using network meta-analysis (NMA) to determine the ranking of different bowel preparation treatment strategies for their associations with postoperative outcomes. Data Sources: Data sources included MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and Scopus databases with no language constraints, including abstracts and articles published prior to 2021. Study Selection: Randomized studies of adults undergoing elective colorectal surgery with appropriate aerobic and anaerobic antibiotic cover that reported on incisional surgical site infection (SSI) or anastomotic leak were selected for inclusion in the analysis. These were selected by multiple reviewers and adjudicated by a separate lead investigator. A total of 167 of 6833 screened studies met initial selection criteria. Data Extraction and Synthesis: NMA was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines. Data were extracted by multiple independent observers and pooled in a random-effects model. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were incisional SSI and anastomotic leak. Secondary outcomes included other infections, mortality, ileus, and adverse effects of preparation. Results: A total of 35 RCTs that included 8377 patients were identified. Treatments compared IV antibiotics (2762 patients [33%]), IV antibiotics with enema (222 patients [3%]), IV antibiotics with OA with or without enema (628 patients [7%]), MBP with IV antibiotics (2712 patients [32%]), MBP with IV antibiotics with OA (with good IV antibiotic cover in 925 patients [11%] and with good overall antibiotic cover in 375 patients [4%]), MBP with OA (267 patients [3%]), and OA (486 patients [6%]). The likelihood of incisional SSI was significantly lower for those receiving IV antibiotics with OA with or without enema (rank 1) and MBP with adequate IV antibiotics with OA (rank 2) compared with all other treatment options. The addition of OA to IV antibiotics, both with and without MBP, was associated with a reduction in incisional SSI by greater than 50%. There were minimal differences between treatments in anastomotic leak and in any of the secondary outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: This NMA demonstrated that the addition of OA to IV antibiotics were associated with a reduction in incisional SSI by greater than 50%. The results support the addition of OA to IV antibiotics to reduce incisional SSI among patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.

Indexed as

Colorectal SurgeryAdministration, OralAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntibiotic ProphylaxisElective Surgical ProceduresHumansPreoperative CareSurgical Wound InfectionAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID34668964
PMCPMC8529526
OpenAlexW3205431047

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.