Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39543399›Full record

ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2024

Reevaluating antibiotic prophylaxis: insights from a network meta-analysis on dry socket and surgical site infections.

Tayebe Rojhanian, Ahmad Sofi-Mahmudi, Amin Vahdati

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Tayebe RojhanianDepartment of Community Oral Health, Faculty of Dentistry, Hormozgan University of Medical Science, Bandar Abbas, Iran. t_rojhanian@yahoo.com.
Ahmad Sofi-MahmudiDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Amin VahdatiCentre for Biostatistics, School of Health Science, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. amin.vahdati@manchester.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

data sourcesThree databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Scopus) were searched in December 2021 for 16 Randomised Clinical Trials (RCTs). STUDY SELECTION: Three reviewers reviewed the articles on oral antibiotic prophylaxis (ABP) for the prevention of surgical site infection (SSI) and dry socket (DS) after lower third molar (L3M) extraction using the PICO framework. From 1999 to 2021, RCTs involving healthy patients undergoing L3M extraction with ABP, placebo, or no therapy were included. Adverse effects (AEs) associated with antibiotic usage, along with the main outcomes (DS and SSI), were also documented. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Three independent investigators selected articles based on pre-established inclusion criteria, with any disagreements resolved by consensus or additional researchers. PRISMA guidelines were followed, involving initial title and abstract screening, followed by full-text evaluation. Exclusion reasons were documented, and the most recent report was included when multiple reports on the same patients were found, with no language restrictions applied. Two investigators evaluated studies quality and quality of evidence respectively using the Cochrane Collaboration tool and GRADEpro GDT. They independently extracted data, focusing on the type of extraction and the number of extracted L3M. They also detailed the use of antibiotics, including dosage, dosage regimen, timing, and duration. Among 16 articles, 15 used a parallel arm design, while one used a crossover design. The antibiotics studied included Amoxicillin+Clavulanic acid (7 articles), Amoxicillin (6), Metronidazole (2), Azithromycin (1), and Clindamycin (2), all compared with no treatment or placebo. A pairwise meta-analysis was used to combine studies with equivalent treatment (direct estimation), and a network meta-analysis compared outcome variables across different treatments (indirect comparison).

resultsTwo included articles had a low risk of bias and the level of evidence was low according to GRADE. Pooled results supported the use of antibiotics to reduce DS and SSI following L3M extraction with a number needed to treat 25 and 18, respectively.

conclusionsDespite the fact that ABP reduces the risk of DS and SSI, it is recommended to consider systemic conditions and individual patient risk factors before prescribing antibiotics, due to global health threat.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsAntibiotic ProphylaxisDry SocketSurgical Wound InfectionTooth ExtractionHumansMolar, ThirdNetwork Meta-Analysis as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID39543399
PMCPMC11661963

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.