Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34843035›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2022

Antimicrobial stewardship for surgical antibiotic prophylaxis and surgical site infections: a systematic review.

Joselin Valeska Martinez-Sobalvarro, Antônio Alves Pereira Júnior, Lucas Borges Pereira, André Oliveira Baldoni, Carla Speroni Ceron, Tiago Marques Dos Reis

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
4.2field-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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Audit and Feedback Interventions for Antibiotic Prescribing in Primary Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Antibiotic Stewardship in Surgical Departments.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Joselin Valeska Martinez-SobalvarroFaculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Federal University of Alfenas, Alfenas, Minas Gerais, Brazil. joselinvale200912@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7074-4609
Antônio Alves Pereira JúniorFaculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Federal University of Alfenas, Alfenas, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Lucas Borges PereiraSchool of Pharmaceutical Sciences of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil.
André Oliveira BaldoniFederal University of São João Del-Rei, Divinópolis, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Carla Speroni CeronInstitute of Exact and Biological Sciences, Federal University of Ouro Preto, Ouro Preto, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Tiago Marques Dos ReisFaculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Federal University of Alfenas, Alfenas, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Universidade Federal de Alfenas · BRFederal University of São João del-Rei · BRUniversidade de São Paulo · BRUniversidade Federal de Ouro Preto · BR

Funding

coordenação de aperfeiçoamento de pessoal de nível superior 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Surgical site infections account for 14-17% of all healthcare-associated infections. Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) are complementary strategies developed to optimize the use of antimicrobials. Aim to evaluate the effectiveness of AMS in promoting adherence to surgical antibiotic prophylaxis protocols in hospitalized patients, reducing surgical site infection rate and cost-benefit ratio. Method This systematic review of randomized clinical trials, non-randomized clinical trials and before and after studies was performed using Pubmed, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, Google Scholar and ClinicalTrials.gov, in addition to reference lists of included studies. The risk of bias of studies was measured by the ROBINS-I checklist and the quality of the evidence synthesis by GRADE. Results Fourteen before and after design studies were included. In 85.7% of the studies, AMS was effective in increasing adherence to surgical antibiotic prophylaxis protocols and in 28.5%, there was reduction in surgical site infection rate. Three studies evaluated cost-benefit ratio and found a favorable impact. Eight (57%) studies were at risk of moderate bias and six had severe bias. The evaluation of the synthesis of evidence showed quality ranging from low to very low. Conclusion AMS, such as audit, feedback, education, implementation of a protocol, and a computer-assisted decision support methodology, appear to be effective in promoting adherence to surgical antibiotic prophylaxis protocols, reducing surgical site infection rate with a positive economic impact. However, more studies, particularly randomized clinical trials, are needed to improve the level of evidence of available information on AMS in order to favor decision-making.

Indexed as

Anti-Infective AgentsAntimicrobial StewardshipAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntibiotic ProphylaxisHumansSurgical Wound InfectionAnti-Bacterial AgentsAnti-Infective AgentsAntibiotic prophylaxisAntimicrobial stewardshipClinical protocolsGuideline adherenceHospitalsOperativeSurgical procedures

Identifiers

PMID34843035
OpenAlexW3215644345

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.