SynthesisPediatric surgery international2022
Antibiotic prophylaxis for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in pediatric patients: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Pediatric surgery international, 2022. 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
purposeTo investigate if Antibiotic Prophylaxis (AP) can prevent wound and/or systemic infection in pediatric patients who underwent Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG).
methodsPubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT) and Observational Studies that compared AP vs. no Intervention (NI) in children submitted to PEG. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled with random-effect models. Quality assessment and risk of bias were performed as outlined by Cochrane recommendations.
resultsFour studies, including one RCT, with a total of 568 patients were included, in which 230 (40.5%) individuals received AP. The use of AP during PEG reduced the incidence of systemic infection (OR 0.46; 95% CI 0.24-0.90; p = 0.02; I
conclusionIn this pooled analysis of 568 infants who underwent PEG, the use of AP reduced the incidence of systemic infection. Our results were compatible with findings obtained in the adult population. No differences were found regarding wound infection or the composite outcome of any kind of infection.
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.