ArticleInvestigative and clinical urology2022
Comparison of amikacin with fosfomycin as an add-on to ciprofloxacin for antibiotic prophylaxis in transrectal prostate biopsy: A single-center retrospective study.
Article in Investigative and clinical urology, 2022. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Infection risks and biopsy-associated complications in prostate cancer diagnosis: a review of recent literatures.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2026Review
- Article
- 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo assess the effect of ciprofloxacin (CP) and fosfomycin compared with CP and amikacin in patients with a fluoroquinolone (FQ)-resistant rectal flora who have undergone transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUSPB). MATERIALS AND
methodsIn total, 516 patients with FQ-resistant rectal flora based on rectal swab cultures were divided into two groups according to prophylactic antibiotics. Patients in both groups were administered CP (400 mg, intravenous [IV], twice daily) on the same day as TRUSPB and 1 day after biopsy. The amikacin group (n=260) was administered a single injection of amikacin (1 g, IV) 1 hour before TRUSPB, whereas the fosfomycin group (n=256) was administered fosfomycin (3 g, orally) the night before the procedure. The primary endpoint was the rate of infectious complications in the two groups.
resultsOverall, 13 patients (2.5%) reported infectious complications: 12 patients (4.62%) in the amikacin group compared with 1 patient (0.39%) in the fosfomycin group (risk ratio, 0.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-0.65), respectively, which was a statistically significant difference (p=0.017). This corresponds to a number needed to treat of 24 patients (95% CI, 15-65) to prevent one infectious complication. In the multivariate analysis to assess variables related to infectious complications, prophylactic antibiotics with added fosfomycin was associated with infectious complications (odds ratio, 0.060; 95% CI, 0.008-0.459).
conclusionsIn the era of FQ resistance, CP and fosfomycin may reduce the rate of infectious complications compared with CP and amikacin prophylaxis.
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.