Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39741175›Full record

SynthesisProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2026

Infectious complications following transperineal prostate biopsy with or without periprocedural antibiotic prophylaxis-a systematic review including meta-analysis of all comparative studies.

Ingmar Wolff, Markus Büchner, Katharina Hauner, Florian Wagenlehner, Martin Burchardt, Marianne Abele-Horn, Bernd Wullich, Christian Gilfrich, Adrian Pilatz, Matthias May

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-AnalysisComparative Study
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

10 authors.

Ingmar WolffDepartment of Urology, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany. ingmar.wolff@med.uni-greifswald.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4197-6643
Markus BüchnerDepartment of Urology, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.
Katharina HaunerDepartment of Urology, School of Medicine and Health, TUM University Hospital, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Florian WagenlehnerDepartment of Urology, Pediatric Urology and Andrology, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Giessen, Germany.
Martin BurchardtDepartment of Urology, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.
Marianne Abele-HornInstitute for Hygiene and Microbiology, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.
Bernd WullichDepartment of Urology and Pediatric Urology, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Christian GilfrichDepartment of Urology, St. Elisabeth Hospital Straubing, Brothers of Mercy Hospital, Straubing, Germany.
Adrian Pilatz *Department of Urology, Pediatric Urology and Andrology, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Giessen, Germany.
Matthias May *Department of Urology, St. Elisabeth Hospital Straubing, Brothers of Mercy Hospital, Straubing, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite the relatively low infection rate following transperineal prostate biopsy (TPB), it remains unresolved whether periprocedural antibiotic prophylaxis (PAP) can be omitted. Our aim was to compare infectious complications (genitourinary infections/GUI, fever, sepsis, readmission rate, 30-day-mortality) following TPB, considering all studies of varying levels of evidence that enable a direct comparison between patients with and without PAP.

methodsWe performed a comprehensive search in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases, as well as grey literature sources, to identify reports published until January 2024. All studies comparing the incidence of infectious endpoints following TPB with vs. without PAP were included in the analyses. The GRADE approach was employed to assess the certainty of evidence for each comparison.

resultsTwenty-three studies met the inclusion criteria involving 6520 and 5804 patients who underwent TPB with vs. without PAP, respectively. Two of the 23 studies were randomized-controlled trials, not all studies investigated all endpoints. Pooled incidences between patients with vs. without PAP for the endpoints GUI (0.50% vs. 0.37%), fever (0.44% vs. 0.26%), sepsis (0.16% vs. 0.13%), and readmission rate (0.35% vs. 0.29%) showed no significant differences (all p > 0.250). The corresponding odds ratios (including 95% confidence interval) also revealed no statistically significant differences: 1.37 (0.74-2.54) [GUI], 0.87 (0.28-2.66) [fever], 1.30 (0.46-3.67) [sepsis], and 1.45 (0.70-3.03) [readmission rate]. No study reported events regarding 30-day-mortality. In subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses, TPB without PAP showed no significantly higher complication rates regarding all analyzed endpoints.

conclusionsInfectious complications after TPB occur very rarely and cannot be further reduced by PAP. Considering the results of this systematic review and adhering to the principles of effective antibiotic stewardship, omitting PAP in the context of TPB is advisable.

Indexed as

Antibiotic ProphylaxisPostoperative ComplicationsProstateProstatic NeoplasmsAnti-Bacterial AgentsHumansMalePerineumAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID39741175
PMCPMC12909119

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.