ReviewAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Administration Routes for Perioperative Prophylactic Antibiotics: A Scoping Review of Intravenous Push Versus Infusion.
Review in Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland), 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
objectivesSurgical site infections (SSIs) represent a significant postoperative challenge. Although timely perioperative prophylaxis with cephalosporins is essential to prevention, adherence to the recommended 30-60 min administration window may be challenging with traditional intravenous infusion (IVI) in settings with high surgical turnover, as is the case in China. Intravenous push (IVP) has been proposed as a more time-efficient alternative. This scoping review aims to map the available evidence comparing IVP with IVI for perioperative cephalosporin administration across four domains: safety, pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics (PK/PD), efficacy, and economic impact.
methodsA systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and gray literature up to February 2026. Data were systematically charted and extracted using a standardized form.
resultsOf the 14 included sources, only 3 were peer-reviewed comparative studies; the remaining 11 (78.6%) were gray literature documents. Among the gray literature, 72.7% (8/11) permitted or recommended IVP for cephalosporin prophylaxis; however, this proportion reflected practice patterns of heterogeneous methodological rigor. The 3 peer-reviewed studies focused on the safety, PK/PD, and economic outcomes. Two studies-in orthopedic and bariatric surgery, respectively-found no significant difference in adverse event rates between IVP and IVI, though both were limited by small samples. A single small study suggested similar PK/PD target attainment between IVI and IVP cefazolin. No study directly compared SSI rates between the two routes. One study suggested potential cost savings with IVP, but the evidence was dated and based on limited patient numbers.
conclusionsThe available evidence for IVP is predominantly derived from gray literature, while peer-reviewed articles suggest that safety and PK/PD profiles do not differ markedly from IVI in the limited populations, surgical procedures, and agents studied; economic data are suggestive but dated. Direct comparative data on clinical efficacy outcomes, such as SSI rates, are absent. Well-powered, multi-center comparative studies comparing IVP and IVI with SSI as a primary endpoint are needed.
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.