Trial reportBMJ open gastroenterology2023
Cost-effectiveness analysis of antibiotic prophylaxis versus no antibiotic prophylaxis for acute cholecystectomy.
Trial report in BMJ open gastroenterology, 2023. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Microbiological Spectrum and Antibiotic Resistance in Acute Acalculous and Calculous Cholecystitis: A Seven-Year Study in a Tertiary Center.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Current opinions on the use of prophylactic antibiotics in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Clinical update on acute cholecystitis and biliary pancreatitis: between certainties and grey areas.EClinicalMedicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveFor acute cholecystitis, the treatment of choice is laparoscopic cholecystectomy. In mild-to-moderate cases, the use of antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of postoperative infectious complications (POICs) lacks evidence regarding its cost-effectiveness when compared with no prophylaxis. In the context of rising antimicrobial resistance, there is a clear rationale for a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to determine the most efficient use of National Health Service resources and antibiotic routine usage.
design16 of 226 patients (7.1%) in the single-dose prophylaxis group and 29 of 231 (12.6%) in the non-prophylaxis group developed POICs. A CEA was carried out using health outcome data from thePerioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in the treatment of acute cholecystitis (PEANUTS II) multicentre, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority, clinical trial. Costs were measured in monetary units using pound sterling, and effectiveness expressed as POICs avoided within the first 30 days after cholecystectomy.
resultsThis CEA produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of -£792.70. This suggests a modest cost-effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis being marginally less costly and more effective than no prophylaxis. Three sensitivity analyses were executed considering full adherence to the antibiotic, POICs with increased complexity and break-point analysis suggesting caution in the recommendation of systematic use of antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of POICs.
conclusionThe results of this CEA point to greater consensus in UK-based guidelines surrounding the provision of antibiotic prophylaxis for mild-to-moderate cases of acute cholecystitis.
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.