ArticleBMC infectious diseases2026
Short-course antimicrobial prophylaxis after emergency caesarean section.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe role of short-course antimicrobial prophylaxis (ScAP) after emergency caesarean section is unclear, particularly in low-middle-income countries. We aimed to address this knowledge gap by investigating its effectiveness and exploring the populations that might most benefit from post-delivery ScAP.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study on women without signs or symptoms of any infection during admission for emergency caesarean section. The exposure was standard perioperative care (SPoC) or SPoC + ScAP. The standard ScAP included a 3-day course of either oral amoxicillin/clavulanate, oral sultamicillin (a pro-drug of ampicillin/sulbactam), or oral clindamycin (for suspected or confirmed penicillin allergy). The primary outcome was a composite of any infection related to emergency caesarean section, surgical site infections (SSI), endometritis, and persistent fever of unknown aetiology within 30 days of surgery. The secondary outcomes were individual components of the primary outcome. We used multivariable logistic regression with landmark analysis to estimate the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI).
resultsAmong 2653 included records (mean age 28.9, 15.2% being obese, 32.9% having no comorbidities), ruptured membranes (40.6%) and foetal distress (23.3%) were the 2 most common indications of emergency caesarean section. There were no significant differences in the risk of developing the primary outcome (aOR 0.86, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.05, p = 0.148) or the secondary outcomes (any infection related to emergency caesarean section [aOR 0.84, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.04], SSI [aOR 0.80, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.06], endometritis [aOR 0.92, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.39], and persistent fever of unknown aetiology [aOR 0.93, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.28]). We found limited evidence for a lower risk of the primary outcome in women receiving ScAP with age ≥ 35 years (aOR 0.76, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.99) or with obesity (aOR 0.58, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.97).
conclusionAmong women with low-to-moderate risk of postpartum infection, there was no significant difference in the risk of developing maternal infection after emergency caesarean section between SPoC and SPoC + ScAP groups. Women of older age (≥ 35 years) or with obesity may benefit from ScAP, but further confirmatory research is needed. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.