Dataset Information

Evaluation of different antibiotic prophylaxis strategies for hepatectomy: A network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The application of antibiotic prophylaxis for hepatectomy remains uncertain. This research aims to evaluate different antibiotic prophylaxis strategies for hepatectomy based on network meta-analysis. METHODS:Literature retrieval was conducted in globally recognized databases, namely, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central, to address relative randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating antibiotic prophylaxis strategies for hepatectomy. Relative parametric data, including surgical site infection (SSI), remote site infection (RSI) and total infection (TI), were quantitatively pooled and estimated based on the Bayesian theorem. The values of surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) probabilities regarding each parameter were calculated and ranked. Node-splitting analysis was performed to test the inconsistency of the main results, and publication bias was assessed by examining the funnel plot symmetry. Additional pairwise meta-analyses were performed to validate the differences between respective strategies at the statistical level. RESULTS:After a detailed review, a total of 5 RCTs containing 4 different strategies were included for the network meta-analysis. The results indicated that the application of no antibiotics possessed the highest possibility of having the best clinical effects on SSI (SUCRA, 0.56), RSI (SUCRA, 0.46) and TI (SUCRA, 0.61). Moreover, node-splitting analysis and funnel plot symmetries illustrated no inconsistencies in the current study. Additional pairwise meta-analyses determined that additional and long-duration applications had no clinical benefit. CONCLUSION:Based on current evidence, we concluded that antibiotic prophylaxis did not reveal clinical benefit in hepatectomy. However, more relative trials and statistical evidence are still needed.

SUBMITTER: Guo T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6617204 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluation of different antibiotic prophylaxis strategies for hepatectomy: A network meta-analysis.

Guo Tao T Ding Ruiwen R Yang Jian J Wu Ping P Liu Pengpeng P Liu Zhisu Z Li Zhen Z

Medicine 20190601 26

<h4>Background</h4>The application of antibiotic prophylaxis for hepatectomy remains uncertain. This research aims to evaluate different antibiotic prophylaxis strategies for hepatectomy based on network meta-analysis.<h4>Methods</h4>Literature retrieval was conducted in globally recognized databases, namely, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central, to address relative randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating antibiotic prophylaxis strategies for hepatectomy. Relative parametric data, incl ...[more]

PMID: 31261586

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceAlthough antibiotic prophylaxis following rhinoplasty is widespread, the evidence on antibiotic prophylaxis effectiveness and the superiority of particular administration regimens is controversial. To date, a meta-analysis on the topic has not been performed.ObjectiveTo systematically review the association between use of preventive antibiotics and postoperative complications in patients undergoing rhinoplasty and quantify the review through meta-analysis.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Central (Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials), Scopus, and Web of Science were searched with prospectively designed search phrases on February 16, 2018. All databases were searched from database inception. Key search terms included rhinoplasty, nasal valve repair, and antibacterial agent.Study selectionRandomized clinical trials (RCTs) with adults (≥18 years) undergoing rhinoplasty and including systemic antibiotic medications administered in the absence of other reasons for use of an antibiotic (eg, localized or systemic infection), without restrictions on language or the time of publication, were included in the study. Interventions of interest were classified into 3 types: (1) single-dose systemic antibiotic administered within 24 hours before the first incision, (2) multidose systemic antibiotic treatment started within 24 hours before the first incision and continuing after the operation, and (3) systemic antibiotic therapy (single dose or multidose) started within 24 hours after the first incision. The following comparisons were made: for the interventions of type 1, no antibiotic; for the interventions of types 2 or 3, no antibiotic or an intervention of type 1.Data extraction and synthesisData extraction was compliant with PRISMA guidelines and Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Two independent reviewers assessed the relevance of the remaining records at abstract and full-text stages. Meta-analysis pooled with random-effects model.Main outcomes and measuresDifference in infectious complication rate between groups.ResultsA total of 262 records were identified; of these, only 5 RCTs fulfilled predetermined population, intervention, comparison, and outcome criteria. The pooled study sample consisted of 589 participants. No significant differences in outcome of preventive antibiotic therapy given either preoperatively or postoperatively were found, with a pooled risk ratio of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.35-2.43; P = .86).Conclusions and relevanceThis study appears to be the first Cochrane-protocol systematic review and meta-analysis investigating preventive antibiotics in rhinoplasty. This study's results suggest that pooled evidence from the 5 RCTs does not support the use of preventive antibiotic therapy in rhinoplasty.Level of evidence1.

Project description:Invasive fungal infections (IFIs) are associated with high mortality rates and large economic burdens. Triazole prophylaxis is used for at-risk patients with hematological malignancies or stem cell transplants. We evaluated both the efficacy and the cost-effectiveness of triazole prophylaxis. A network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating fluconazole, itraconazole capsule and solution, posaconazole, and voriconazole was conducted. The outcomes of interest included the incidences of IFIs and deaths. This was coupled with a cost-effectiveness analysis from patient perspective over a lifetime horizon. Probabilities of transitions between health states were derived from the NMA. Resource use and costs were obtained from the Singapore health care institution. Data on 5,505 participants in 21 RCTs were included. Other than itraconazole capsule, all triazole antifungals were effective in reducing IFIs. Posaconazole was better than fluconazole (odds ratio [OR], 0.35 [95% confidence interval [CI], 0.16 to 0.73]) and itraconazole capsule (OR, 0.25 [95% CI, 0.06 to 0.97]), but not voriconazole (OR, 1.31 [95% CI, 0.43 to 4.01]), in preventing IFIs. Posaconazole significantly reduced all-cause deaths, compared to placebo, fluconazole, and itraconazole solution (OR, 0.49 to 0.54 [95% CI, 0.28 to 0.88]). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for itraconazole solution was lower than that for posaconazole (Singapore dollars [SGD] 12,546 versus SGD 26,817 per IFI avoided and SGD 5,844 versus SGD 12,423 per LY saved) for transplant patients. For leukemia patients, itraconazole solution was the dominant strategy. Voriconazole was dominated by posaconazole. All triazole antifungals except itraconazole capsule were effective in preventing IFIs. Posaconazole was more efficacious in reducing IFIs and all-cause deaths than were fluconazole and itraconazole. Both itraconazole solution and posaconazole were cost-effective in the Singapore health care setting.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine and compare the effects of drug prophylaxis on SARS-CoV-2 infection and covid-19.DesignLiving systematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesWorld Health Organization covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature to 25 March 2021, and six additional Chinese databases to 20 February 2021.Study selectionRandomised trials of people at risk of covid-19 who were assigned to receive prophylaxis or no prophylaxis (standard care or placebo). Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles.MethodsRandom effects bayesian network meta-analysis was performed after duplicate data abstraction. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and certainty of evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach.ResultsThe first iteration of this living network meta-analysis includes nine randomised trials-six of hydroxychloroquine (n=6059 participants), one of ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan (n=234), and two of ivermectin alone (n=540), all compared with standard care or placebo. Two trials (one of ramipril and one of bromhexine hydrochloride) did not meet the sample size requirements for network meta-analysis. Hydroxychloroquine has trivial to no effect on admission to hospital (risk difference 1 fewer per 1000 participants, 95% credible interval 3 fewer to 4 more; high certainty evidence) or mortality (1 fewer per 1000, 2 fewer to 3 more; high certainty). Hydroxychloroquine probably does not reduce the risk of laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (2 more per 1000, 18 fewer to 28 more; moderate certainty), probably increases adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation (19 more per 1000, 1 fewer to 70 more; moderate certainty), and may have trivial to no effect on suspected, probable, or laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (15 fewer per 1000, 64 fewer to 41 more; low certainty). Owing to serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision, and thus very low certainty of evidence, the effects of ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan on laboratory confirmed covid-19 (52 fewer per 1000, 58 fewer to 37 fewer), ivermectin alone on laboratory confirmed infection (50 fewer per 1000, 59 fewer to 16 fewer) and suspected, probable, or laboratory confirmed infection (159 fewer per 1000, 165 fewer to 144 fewer) remain very uncertain.ConclusionsHydroxychloroquine prophylaxis has trivial to no effect on hospital admission and mortality, probably increases adverse effects, and probably does not reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Because of serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision, it is highly uncertain whether ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan and ivermectin alone reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.Systematic review registrationThis review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a supplement.Readers' noteThis article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication.

Project description:Controversy exists regarding the use of continuous antibiotic prophylaxis vs observation in the management of children with vesicoureteral reflux. The reported effectiveness of continuous antibiotic prophylaxis in children with reflux varies widely. We determined whether the aggregated evidence supports use of continuous antibiotic prophylaxis in children with vesicoureteral reflux.We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, clinicaltrials.gov, MEDLINE(®), EMBASE(®), Google Scholar and recently presented meeting abstracts for reports in any language. Bibliographies of included studies were then hand searched for any missed articles. The study protocol was prospectively registered at PROSPERO (No. CRD42014009639). Reports were assessed and data abstracted in duplicate, with differences resolved by consensus. Risk of bias was assessed using standardized instruments.We identified 1,547 studies, of which 8 are included in the meta-analysis. Pooled results demonstrated that continuous antibiotic prophylaxis significantly reduced the risk of recurrent febrile or symptomatic urinary tract infection (pooled OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.42-0.96) but, if urinary tract infection occurred, increased the risk of antibiotic resistant organism (pooled OR 8.75, 95% CI 3.52-21.73). A decrease in new renal scarring was not associated with continuous antibiotic prophylaxis use. Adverse events were similar between the 2 groups. Significant heterogeneity existed between studies (I(2) 50%, p = 0.03), specifically between those trials with significant risk of bias (eg unclear protocol descriptions and/or lack of blinding).Compared to no treatment, continuous antibiotic prophylaxis significantly reduced the risk of febrile and symptomatic urinary tract infections in children with vesicoureteral reflux, although it increased the risk of infection due to antibiotic resistant bacteria. Continuous antibiotic prophylaxis did not significantly impact the occurrence of new renal scarring or reported adverse events.

Dataset Information

Evaluation of different antibiotic prophylaxis strategies for hepatectomy: A network meta-analysis.

Publications

Evaluation of different antibiotic prophylaxis strategies for hepatectomy: A network meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets