MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W155414710 · doi:10.1155/2012/375956

Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Transarterial Therapy of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis

2012· review· en· W155414710 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jun Wang, Xiaodong He, You Cheng Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Gastroenterology · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Gansu ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMedicineAntibioticsAntibiotic prophylaxisBacteremiaHepatocellular carcinomaMeta-analysisInternal medicineSepsisIncidence (geometry)Relative riskRandomized controlled trialProspective cohort studySurgeryConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transarterial therapies, either alone or in conjunction with adjuvant therapies, have been demonstrated to improve survival rates in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Although generally well tolerated and widely used for more than two decades, transarterial procedures have been reported to be associated with several infectious complications when performed in patients with HCC. However, the question of whether antibiotic prophylaxis is necessary for patients undergoing transarterial procedures for HCC remains controversial. Accordingly, this meta-analysis examined clinical trial evidence regarding the effects of prophylactic antibiotic therapy versus no prophylactic treatment with respect to infectious complications in patients undergoing transarterial therapy for HCC. BACKGROUND: The use of prophylactic antibiotics against postprocedure infection in patients undergoing transarterial therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma is controversial. AIM: To compare the effects of prophylactic antibiotic treatment and no prophylactic antibiotic treatment on infectious complications following transarterial procedures. METHODS: Clinical trials fulfilling predefined selection criteria were identified by searching several bibliographic databases; a meta-analysis was performed where appropriate. RESULTS: Four trials of inadequate quality consisting of 210 patients were included in the analysis. Only one case of possible postprocedure infection in each group was reported. The rate of patients developing fever (RR 0.91 [95% CI 0.61 to 1.35]), changes in peripheral white blood cell count or serum C-reactive protein levels, and the mean length of hospital stay (mean difference 0.20 [95% CI 0.75 to 1.14]) showed no significant intergroup differences between antibiotic and no antibiotic treatment. Furthermore, the results of the present study indicated that the incidence of bacteremia, septicemia, sepsis or hepatic abscess after transarterial therapy was rare. CONCLUSION: Antibiotic prophylaxis in patients undergoing transarterial therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma may not be routinely necessary. However, a more judicious use of antibiotics is recommended for patients who are at an increased risk of infection. Nevertheless, prospective trials on a larger scale are clearly needed.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.038
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.176
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.116 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of GastroenterologySame topicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and PrognosisFrench-language works237,207