SynthesisWellcome open research2025
The role of antimicrobial prophylaxis in the management of snakebite: a systematic review.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The role of antimicrobial prophylaxis in the management of snakebite: a systematic review.Wellcome open research · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
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
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.