↓ Skip to main content

Topical antibiotics for preventing surgical site infection in wounds healing by primary intention

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
29 tweeters
facebook
5 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
157 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Topical antibiotics for preventing surgical site infection in wounds healing by primary intention
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011426.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Clare F Heal, Jennifer L Banks, Phoebe D Lepper, Evangelos Kontopantelis, Mieke L van Driel

Abstract

Surgical site infections (SSI) can delay wound healing, impair cosmetic outcome and increase healthcare costs. Topical antibiotics are sometimes used to reduce microbial contaminant exposure following surgical procedures, with the aim of reducing SSIs. The primary objective of this review was to determine whether the application of topical antibiotics to surgical wounds that are healing by primary intention reduces the incidence of SSI and whether it increases the incidence of adverse outcomes (allergic contact dermatitis, infections with patterns of antibiotic resistance and anaphylaxis). In May 2015 we searched: the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL. We also searched clinical trial registries for ongoing studies, and bibliographies of relevant publications to identify further eligible trials. There was no restriction of language, date of study or setting. The search was repeated in May 2016 to ensure currency of included studies. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials that assessed the effects of topical antibiotics (any formulation, including impregnated dressings) in people with surgical wounds healing by primary intention were eligible for inclusion. Two review authors independently selected studies and independently extracted data. Two authors then assessed the studies for risk of bias. Risk ratios were calculated for dichotomous variables, and when a sufficient number of comparable trials were available, trials were pooled in a meta-analysis. A total of 10 RCTs and four quasi-randomised trials with 6466 participants met the inclusion criteria. Six studies involved minor procedures conducted in an outpatient or emergency department setting; eight studies involved major surgery conducted in theatre. Nine different topical antibiotics were included. We included two three-arm trials, two four-arm trials and 10 two-arm trials. The control groups comprised; an alternative topical antibiotic (two studies), topical antiseptic (six studies) and no topical antibiotic (10 studies), which comprised inert ointment (five studies) no treatment (four studies) and one study with one arm of each.The risk of bias of the 14 studies varied. Seven studies were at high risk of bias, five at unclear risk of bias and two at low risk of bias. Most risk of bias concerned risk of selection bias.Twelve of the studies (6259 participants) reported infection rates, although we could not extract the data for this outcome from one study. Four studies (3334 participants) measured allergic contact dermatitis as an outcome. Four studies measured positive wound swabs for patterns of antimicrobial resistance, for which there were no outcomes reported. No episodes of anaphylaxis were reported. Topical antibiotic versus no topical antibioticWe pooled the results of eight trials (5427 participants) for the outcome of SSI. Topical antibiotics probably reduce the risk of SSI in people with surgical wounds healing by primary intention compared with no topical antibiotic (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.87; moderate-quality evidence downgraded once for risk of bias). This equates to 20 fewer SSIs per 1000 patients treated with topical antibiotics (95% CI 7 to 29) and a number needed to treat for one additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) (i.e. prevention of one SSI) of 50.We pooled the results of three trials (3012 participants) for the outcome of allergic contact dermatitis, however this comparison was underpowered, and it is unclear whether topical antibiotics affect the risk of allergic contact dermatitis (RR 3.94, 95% CI 0.46 to 34.00; very low-quality evidence, downgraded twice for risk of bias, once for imprecision). Topical antibiotic versus antiseptic We pooled the results of five trials (1299 participants) for the outcome of SSI. Topical antibiotics probably reduce the risk of SSI in people with surgical wounds healing by primary intention compared with using topical antiseptics (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence downgraded once for risk of bias). This equates to 43 fewer SSIs per 1000 patients treated with topical antibiotics instead of antiseptics (95% CI 17 to 59) and an NNTB of 24.We pooled the results of two trials (541 participants) for the outcome of allergic contact dermatitis; there was no clear difference in the risk of dermatitis between topical antibiotics and antiseptics, however this comparison was underpowered and a difference cannot be ruled out (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.82; very low-quality evidence, downgraded twice for risk of bias and once for imprecision). Topical antibiotic versus topical antibioticOne study (99 participants) compared mupirocin ointment with a combination ointment of neomycin/polymyxin B/bacitracin zinc for the outcome of SSI. There was no clear difference in the risk of SSI, however this comparison was underpowered (very low-quality evidence downgraded twice for risk of bias, once for imprecision).A four-arm trial involved two antibiotic arms (neomycin sulfate/bacitracin zinc/polymyxin B sulphate combination ointment versus bacitracin zinc, 219 participants). There was no clear difference in risk of SSI between the combination ointment and the bacitracin zinc ointment. The quality of evidence for this outcome was low, downgraded once for risk of bias, and once for imprecision. Topical antibiotics applied to surgical wounds healing by primary intention probably reduce the risk of SSI relative to no antibiotic, and relative to topical antiseptics (moderate quality evidence). We are unable to draw conclusions regarding the effects of topical antibiotics on adverse outcomes such as allergic contact dermatitis due to lack of statistical power (small sample sizes). We are also unable to draw conclusions regarding the impact of increasing topical antibiotic use on antibiotic resistance. The relative effects of different topical antibiotics are unclear.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 157 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 156 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 17%
Researcher 22 14%
Student > Bachelor 19 12%
Student > Postgraduate 13 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 8%
Other 34 22%
Unknown 31 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Other 24 15%
Unknown 40 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 19 April 2019.
All research outputs
#779,332
of 14,251,174 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,360
of 10,917 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,069
of 289,343 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#48
of 168 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,251,174 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,917 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 289,343 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 168 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.