Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41287797›Full record

SynthesisWellcome open research2025

The role of antimicrobial prophylaxis in the management of snakebite: a systematic review.

Samuel Moody, Alison Beech, Eli Harriss, Thomas Lamb

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Wellcome open research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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

4 authors.

Samuel MoodyDepartment of Infection, North Manchester General Hospital, Manchester, England, M85RB, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9828-0420
Alison BeechDepartment of Infection, North Manchester General Hospital, Manchester, England, M85RB, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-0218-6087
Eli HarrissUniversity of Oxford Health Care Libraries, Oxford, England, OX37DQ, UK.
Thomas LambDepartment of Infection, North Manchester General Hospital, Manchester, England, M85RB, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Snakebite, a neglected tropical disease disproportionately affecting lower-income countries, is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Local toxicity and necrosis may result in secondary bacterial infection of bite sites. Despite most guidelines not recommending prophylactic antimicrobials, their use is common in practise. This review aims to systematically assess literature around the use of prophylactic use of antimicrobials in snakebite. We also aim to assess the incidence of secondary infections, types of antimicrobials used, and the aetiology of infections arising from snakebite. Methods: Systematic database searches for studies assessing prophylactic antimicrobial use undertaken. Data was assessed by two reviewers and extracted using a standardised proforma. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias and data extracted narratively. The protocol was prospectively registered on PROSPERO database (CRD42023430752). Results: 492 studies were screened. Four met the inclusion criteria, totalling 696 patients across three countries. No study found a statistically significant benefit for the use of antibiotic prophylaxis, with no effect on the number or severity of adverse incidents. There were 114 adverse incidences related to secondary infection, with nineteen positive cultures. Conclusions: This review finds little evidence pertaining to the use of antimicrobial prophylaxis. Studies were highly heterogenous with incomplete reporting of standardised processes. Bacteria isolated supports existing observational data implicating bacteria found in snake oral flora (e.g.

Indexed as

antibioticantimicrobialbacterial infectionenvenomingprophylaxisSnakebite

Identifiers

PMID41287797
PMCPMC12640490

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.