ArticleTzu chi medical journal
A randomized controlled trial to compare antibiotic prophylaxis in elective gynecological surgeries: Single dose of cefazolin versus single dose of cefazolin and tinidazole.
Article in Tzu chi medical journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate if addition of an anti-anaerobic agent to standard drug-cefazolin for antimicrobial prophylaxis would further decrease postoperative infectious morbidity or not. This is relevant as most of the infections in gynecological surgeries are anaerobic but cefazolin does not protect against anaerobes. Materials and Methods: The study design was a parallel randomized controlled trial. Two hundred patients undergoing benign gynecological surgeries were divided into two groups of 100 each. Group A received 2 g cefazolin 30-60 min before incision and Group B received 2 g cefazolin 30-60 min and 1.6 g tinidazole 60-120 min before incision. The patients were followed for any infectious morbidity for 1 month postoperatively. The analysis was done separately for abdominal, laparoscopic, and vaginal surgeries. The analysis was also done for surgeries according to the wound category, i.e. clean and clean-contaminated. Results: The two groups were comparable for age and body mass index (BMI). The two groups were comparable for the factors affecting infectious morbidity such as duration of surgery, blood loss, blood transfusions, duration of hospital stay, and need for additional antibiotics. The postoperative infectious morbidity was analyzed in terms of fever, surgical site infection (SSI), and urinary tract infection (UTI). No patient in vaginal and laparoscopic groups suffered from infectious morbidity. In abdominal surgeries group, postoperative fever occurred in 6/74 (8.1%) and 11/74 patients (14.8%) in Groups A and B, respectively ( Conclusion: Cefazolin alone is a sufficient antibiotic prophylaxis for benign gynecological procedures.
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.