Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39001923›Full record

Trial reportEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2024

Prophylactic antibiotics in sialendoscopy: a randomized clinical trial.

Carlos M Chiesa-Estomba, Alvaro Sanchez-Barrueco, Giovanni Cammaroto, Jerome R Lechien, Miguel Mayo-Yanez, Carlos Cenjor, Pasquale Capaccio, Carlos Saga-Gutierrez

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Questioning routine antibiotic prophylaxis in sialendoscopy: a single-surgeon 164-case analysis.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Carlos M Chiesa-EstombaDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Osakidetza Donostia University Hospital, Biodonostia Research Institute, San Sebastian, 20014, Spain. chiesaestomba86@gmail.com.
Alvaro Sanchez-BarruecoENT and Cervicofacial Surgery Department, Hospital Universitario Fundación Jiménez Díaz, Madrid, Spain.
Giovanni CammarotoDepartment of Head-Neck Surgery, Otolaryngology, Head-Neck and Oral Surgery Unit, Morgagni Pierantoni Hospital, Forlì, 47121, Italy.
Jerome R LechienDepartment of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Division of Laryngology and Broncho-Esophagology, UMONS Research Institute for Health Sciences and Technology, EpiCURA Hospital, University of Mons, Mons, Belgium.
Miguel Mayo-YanezOtorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery Department, Complexo Hospitalario Universitario A Coruña (CHUAC), Galicia, 15006, A Coruña, Spain.
Carlos CenjorENT and Cervicofacial Surgery Department, Hospital Universitario Fundación Jiménez Díaz, Madrid, Spain.
Pasquale CapaccioDepartment of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Carlos Saga-GutierrezDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Osakidetza Donostia University Hospital, Biodonostia Research Institute, San Sebastian, 20014, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveAntibiotics have been prescribed routinely in sialendoscopy procedures to reduce the risk of postoperative infection, despite the limited evidence supporting this practice. Being necessary to assess the need for antibiotics in Sialendoscopy, aiming to provide evidence-based guidance to clinicians regarding antibiotic administration in this procedure. MATERIALS &

methodA prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial to evaluate the of prophylactic antibiotics in Sialendoscopy was designed.

resultsA total of 80 patients were included in this study, including 57 females (71.8%) and 23 males (28.8%). In terms of prophylaxis, 36 patients (45%) received prophylactic treatment, and 44 patients (55%) did not. The occurrence of infectious events was observed in 2 patients (5.6%) with prophylaxis and 4 patients (9.1%) without prophylaxis. However, this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.556).

conclusionIn conclusion, our prospective, randomized clinical trial aimed to address the debate regarding the use of prophylactic antibiotics in sialendoscopy. Our study's findings suggest that the routine use antibiotics may not be necessary to prevent postoperative infections in sialendoscopy procedures. These results have important implications for clinical practice, potentially reducing the unnecessary use of antibiotics and addressing concerns related to antibiotic resistance and adverse drug reactions.

Indexed as

Antibiotic ProphylaxisEndoscopyAdolescentAdultAgedAnti-Bacterial AgentsDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesSurgical Wound InfectionYoung AdultAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntibioticsProphylaxisSialendoscopy

Identifiers

PMID39001923

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.