↓ Skip to main content

Antibiotics for infection prevention after excision of the cervical transformation zone

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2017
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 (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
14 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 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
Antibiotics for infection prevention after excision of the cervical transformation zone
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009957.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chumnan Kietpeerakool, Bandit Chumworathayi, Jadsada Thinkhamrop, Butsakorn Ussahgij, Pisake Lumbiganon

Abstract

Excision of the transformation zone of the cervix is the most commonly used approach to treat cervical precancerous lesions (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN)) to reduce the risk of developing cervical cancer. As the excision of the transformation zone leaves a raw area on the cervix, there is a risk of infection following the procedure. The incidence of infection after cold knife conization (CKC) is 36%, whereas the incidence for large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ, also known as loop electrical excision procedure (LEEP)) is much lower (0.8% to 14.4%). Prophalytic antibiotics may prevent an infection developing and are often prescribed for CKC. However, there are no formal recommendations regarding the use of prophylactic antibiotics for infection prevention in women undergoing surgical excisional treatment for cervical precancerous lesions. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of antibiotics for infection prevention following excision of the cervical transformation zone. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2016, Issue 4), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS to May 2016. We also checked registers of clinical trials, citation lists of included studies, key textbooks and previous systematic reviews for potentially relevant studies SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness and safety of prophylactic antibiotics versus a placebo or no treatment in women having excision of the cervical transformation zone, regardless of the type of surgical excisional method used. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently selected potentially relevant trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias, compared results and resolved disagreements by discussion. We contacted investigators for additional data, where possible. Of the 370 records that we identified as a result of the search (excluding duplicates), we regarded six abstracts and titles as potentially relevant studies. Of these six studies, three met the inclusion criteria involving 708 participants; most trials were at moderate or high risk of bias (risk mainly due to lack of blinding and high rate of incomplete data). We did not identify any ongoing trials. Although all included studies had been published in peer-reviewed journals at the time of the search and data extraction, numerical data regarding the outcome measured in one trial involving 77 participants were insufficient for inclusion in a meta-analyses.The difference in the rates of prolonged vaginal discharge or presumed cervicitis (one study; 348 participants; risk ratio (RR), 1.29; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 2.31; low-quality evidence) and severe vaginal bleeding (two studies; 638 participants; RR 1.21; 95% CI 0.52 to 2.82; very low-quality evidence) among the two comparison groups did not reach the level for clinically important effect. In addition, there was no difference in adverse events related to antibiotics i.e. nausea/vomiting, diarrhoea, and headache among the two comparison groups (two studies; 638 participants; RR 1.69; 95% CI 0.85 to 3.34; very low-quality evidence). There were no differences in the incidence of fever (RR, 2.23; 95% CI 0.20 to 24.36), lower abdominal pain (RR, 1.03; 95% CI 0.61 to 1.72), unscheduled medical consultation (RR 2.68, 95% CI 0.97 to 7.41), and additional self-medication (RR 1.22; 95% CI 0.56 to 2.67) between the two comparison groups (one study; 290 participants; low to very low-quality evidence). As only limited data are available from three trials with overall moderate to high risk of bias, there is insufficient evidence to support use of antibiotics to reduce infectious complications following excision of the cervical transformation zone. In addition, there were minimal data about antibiotic-related adverse events and no information on the risk of developing antibiotic resistance. Antibiotics given for infection prevention after excision of the cervical transformation zone should only be used in the context of clinical research, to avoid unnecessary prescription of antibiotics and to prevent further increases in antibiotic resistance.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 15 26%
Student > Master 12 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 17%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 12 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 43%
Unspecified 17 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 9%
Psychology 2 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Other 7 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 10 November 2018.
All research outputs
#935,019
of 13,402,263 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,916
of 10,583 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,292
of 345,775 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#67
of 212 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,402,263 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,583 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 345,775 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 212 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 68% of its contemporaries.