ArticleCureus2026
From Needle to Sachet: Fosfomycin Versus Amikacin for Cystoscopy Prophylaxis.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAntibiotic prophylaxis is commonly administered before outpatient cystoscopic procedures (CPE). This study compared the efficacy and safety of parenteral amikacin and oral fosfomycin used as prophylactic agents before outpatient cystoscopy.
methodsThis retrospective comparative observational study included adult patients undergoing outpatient CPE at a tertiary care center between October 2024 and November 2025. Patients received either a single intravenous dose of amikacin (15 mg/kg) or a single oral dose of fosfomycin trometamol (3 g) before the procedure, according to institutional practice. The primary outcome was the incidence of symptomatic urinary tract infection (UTI) within 14 days following CPE. Secondary outcomes included culture-positive UTI and adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Categorical variables were compared using the chi-square or Fisher's exact test, and continuous variables were compared using the independent t-test.
resultsA total of 2914 patients were included, of whom 2083 received amikacin, and 831 received fosfomycin. Symptomatic UTI occurred in 6.7% of patients in the amikacin group and 8.2% in the fosfomycin group (p = 0.18). Culture-positive UTI rates were comparable (2.1% vs 2.0%, p = 0.91). Acute kidney injury was significantly more frequent with amikacin (2.6% vs 0.1%, p < 0.001), while gastrointestinal adverse effects were more common with fosfomycin (8.3% vs 2.3%, p < 0.001). Injection-related reactions occurred only in the amikacin group.
conclusionsFosfomycin demonstrated efficacy comparable to amikacin for preventing post-cystoscopy UTI, with a more favorable safety profile. Oral fosfomycin represents a safe and effective alternative to aminoglycosides for prophylaxis before outpatient cystoscopic procedures, particularly in patients at risk for aminoglycoside-related toxicity.
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.