MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166725479

Factors influencing antibiotic prophylaxis for surgical site infection prevention in general surgery: a review of the literature.

2009· review· en· W2166725479 on OpenAlexaff
Anna R. Gagliardi, Darlene Fenech, Cagla Eskicioglu, Avery B. Nathens, Robin S. McLeod

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical site infection prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionAntibiotic prophylaxisMEDLINEFamily medicineCochrane LibrarySystematic reviewInformaticsIntensive care medicineNursingMeta-analysisAntibioticsInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infections (SSIs) are common surgical complications that can be prevented with antibiotic prophylaxis. Research shows poor adherence to guidelines for this practice. We conducted a scoping review to identify factors or interventions that influence antibiotic prophylaxis administration. METHODS: An investigator with informatics training searched indexed (MEDLINE, Cochrane Library) and nonindexed (Internet) sources from January 1996 to February 2007. Selected studies were English-language, peer-reviewed, quantitative or qualitative studies describing factors or interventions influencing adherence to SSI-prevention guidelines or SSI rates in general surgery. Two investigators independently reviewed citations and full-text articles and extracted data, and met to compare selections or data and resolve differences through discussion. We extracted data on type of surgery, study design, intervention or factors examined and key findings. We then examined the quantity and type of studies and their findings. RESULTS: Nineteen of 192 studies met the eligibility criteria. Seven studies investigated predictors of appropriate antibiotic use through descriptive or exploratory means. Twelve evaluated adherence to antibiotic prophylaxis recommendations by comparing patient cohorts before and after the introduction of quality-improvement strategies. Individual knowledge, attitudes, beliefs and practice; team communication and allocation of responsibilities; and institutional support for promoting and monitoring practice appear to influence practice. CONCLUSION: Larger and multisite studies included in our review favour implementation of multidisciplinary pathways, individualized performance data and written or computerized order sets as quality-improvement strategies, but further research is warranted to more rigorously evaluate the effectiveness of these strategies on antibiotic prophylaxis practice.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0090.012
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations63
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicSurgical site infection preventionFrench-language works237,207