| Title |
Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Elective Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: a Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11605-018-3739-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Juan Camilo Gomez-Ospina, James A Zapata-Copete, Monica Bejarano, Herney Andrés García-Perdomo |
| Abstract |
To determine the effectiveness and harms of using antibiotic prophylaxis (ABP) versus placebo/no intervention in patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy (eLCC) to prevent surgical site infection (SSI). We searched MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE, LILACS, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from inception to October 2017. We included clinical trials which involved adults at low risk undergoing eLCC and compared ABP versus placebo/no intervention. The primary outcome was SSI and secondary outcomes were other infections and adverse effects. Cochrane Collaboration tool was used to assess the risk of bias. We performed the statistical analysis in R and reported information about risk difference (RD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was evaluated using the I2 test. We produced network diagrams to show the amount of evidence available for each outcome and the most frequent comparison. We included 18 studies in qualitative and quantitative analysis. The antibiotics most commonly studied were cefazolin and cefuroxime. We found high risk of detection bias in one study and attrition bias in another. Unclear risks of selection, performance, and detection bias were frequent. For SSI, we found no heterogeneity I2 = 0% and no inconsistency p = 0.9780. No significant differences were found when compared ABP versus placebo/no intervention. Cefazolin had a RD of - 0.00 (95% CI - 0.01 to 0.01). We found no differences in regular meta-analysis, with a RD of - 0.00 (95% CI - 0.01 to 0.01) as well as for intra-abdominal and distant infections. Adverse effects were only assessed in one study, without any case reported. This systematic review demonstrated no differences between ABP versus placebo/no intervention when using to prevent SSI and intra-abdominal and distant infections in patients at low risk undergoing eLCC. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 22% |
| Spain | 3 | 17% |
| Mexico | 2 | 11% |
| India | 1 | 6% |
| Greece | 1 | 6% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 6% |
| Poland | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 5 | 28% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 10 | 56% |
| Members of the public | 5 | 28% |
| Scientists | 2 | 11% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 50 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 8% |
| Professor | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 16% |
| Unknown | 22 | 44% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 40% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 24 | 48% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 June 2018.
All research outputs
#3,263,079
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery
#172
of 2,489 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,502
of 348,782 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery
#6
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,489 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 348,782 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.