ArticleBJUI compass2023
Antibiotic prophylaxis in flexible ureterorenoscopy with negative urine culture.
Article in BJUI compass, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ureteral stents with extraction strings - a review on infection risk and prevention.Central European journal of urology · 2025Review
- Article
- Infection Prophylaxis in Urological Diagnostic and Surgical Procedures - A narrative review and recommendations.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To improve susceptibility profiles of nosocomial bacteria, identifying the difference between infectious complications in patients undergoing endoscopic flexible ureterolithotomy (fURS) with negative urine culture (UC) that received extended antibiotic prophylaxis (EP) compared with standard antibiotic prophylaxis (SP). Methodology: This is a retrospective, observational, analytical cohort study, comparing infectious complications between patients undergoing fURS with negative UC who received EP versus SP. We include patients with susccessfull fURS, <20-mm stones and complete information. Results: Overall, 10.3% of patients had complications, 7.2% of patients had postoperative urinary infection, 1.8% had upper urinary tract infection (UTI) and 1.4% had urinary sepsis. Lower UTI were significantly more likely in the extended prophylaxis group with 6.8% versus 2.7% (RR = 2.8; 95% CI: 1.10-7.37, Conclusions: Patients with negative UC who underwent fURS using extended prophylaxis have two times higher risk of low UTI than patients with standard prophylaxis, without differences in the incidence of upper UTI or urinary sepsis. The risk of MDRB isolation in the postoperative UC is higher in the extended prophylaxis group, therefore we recommend the standard 60-min preoperative 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.