ArticleInfection and drug resistance2026
Impact of Clinical Pharmacist Intervention on Perioperative Antimicrobial Prophylaxis in Hysteroscopic Surgery: A Retrospective Study.
Article in Infection and drug resistance, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Perioperative prophylactic antimicrobial use for hysteroscopic surgery is suboptimal, even with guidelines and official policies in place. This study aimed to assess the role of clinical pharmacists in the management of perioperative prophylactic antimicrobial therapy in hysteroscopic surgery and to analyze its impact on clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness. Methods: This retrospective study reviewed hysteroscopic surgery cases at a tertiary-level Class A hospital from September to December 2022 and September to December 2023. The cases were divided into routine and intervention groups on the basis of the involvement of clinical pharmacists. The primary outcomes assessed included the rational use of antimicrobial drugs, postoperative infections, and economic benefits. To control for confounding factors, a 1:1 propensity score matching method was applied. Results: A total of 849 patients were included in this study, with 226 patients in each group after propensity score matching. Significant differences were observed between the conventional and intervention groups in several areas: unreasonable timing of preoperative drug administration (22.7% vs 0%, p < 0.001), prolonged duration of prophylaxis (32.6% vs 11.5%, p = 0.029), unindicated prophylaxis (69% vs 28.8%, p < 0.001), and inappropriate dosing regimens (61.5% vs 14.6%, p < 0.001). In terms of economic benefits, the intervention group showed a significant reduction in the length of hospitalization (3.15 vs 2.15 days, p < 0.001). Additionally, significant differences were found in the costs of patient medications ($53.17 vs $42.66, p < 0.001) and antimicrobials ($8.16 vs $2.18, p < 0.001). Conclusion: Clinical pharmacist interventions can significantly enhance the rational use of perioperative antimicrobial drugs in hysteroscopic surgery, leading to notable clinical outcomes and economic benefits.
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.