SynthesisInternational wound journal2023
Effect of Clindamycin compared with Ampicillin-Sulbactam as prophylactic antibiotics for wound infections following major surgery for head and neck cancer: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in International wound journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of Clindamycin compared with Ampicillin-Sulbactam as prophylactic antibiotics for wound infections following major surgery for head and neck cancer: A meta-analysis.International wound journal · 2023Pooled it
- RETRACTION: Effect of Clindamycin Compared with Ampicillin-Sulbactam as Prophylactic Antibiotics for Wound Infections Following Major Surgery for Head and Neck Cancer: A Meta-Analysis.International wound journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2025-01-12Compromised Peer Review · Investigation by Journal/Publisher · Objections by Author(s) ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A meta-analysis examination was implemented to review the effect of Clindamycin compared with Ampicillin-Sulbactam as prophylactic antibiotics (PAs) management for surgical site wound infections (SSWIs) following major surgery (MS) for head and neck cancer (H&NC). A comprehensive literature examination till May 2023 was done and 1296 interrelated examinations were reviewed. The six elected examinations, enclosed 4293 personals with MS for H&NC were in the utilized examinations' starting point, 1722 of them were utilizing Clindamycin, and 2571 were utilizing Ampicillin-Sulbactam. Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were utilized to appraise the consequence of Clindamycin compared with Ampicillin-Sulbactam as PAs management for SSWIs following MS for H&NC by the dichotomous approach and a fixed or random model. Clindamycin had significantly higher SSWI compared with Ampicillin-Sulbactam (OR, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.40-5.02, p = 0.003) in personals with MS for H&NC. Clindamycin had significantly higher SSWI compared with Ampicillin-Sulbactam in personals with MS for H&NC. However, caution needs to be taken when interacting with its values because there was a low sample size of some of the chosen examinations and a low number of examinations found for the comparisons in the meta-analysis.
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.