MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2184915840

Oral versus systemic antibiotic prophylaxis in elective colon surgery: a randomized study and meta-analysis send a message from the 1990s.

2002· article· en· W2184915840 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ronald T. Lewis

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical site infection prevention
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSystemic antibioticsRandomized controlled trialMetronidazoleAntibioticsSurgeryElective surgeryAntibiotic prophylaxisRelative riskPlaceboColorectal surgeryInternal medicineConfidence intervalAbdominal surgery
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of combined oral and systemic antibiotics (combined) versus systemic antibiotics (systemic) alone in preventing surgical site infection in elective surgery of the colon, and to perform a meta-analysis of randomized studies comparing combined versus systemic antibiotics in elective colon surgery. DESIGN: A double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial. SETTING: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Montreal, a university-affiliated community hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred and fifteen patients scheduled to undergo elective surgery of the colon. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive neomycin and metronidazole orally (109 patients) or identical placebos (106 patients) on the final preoperative day. All were given amikacin and metronidazole intravenously just before operation. Thirteen randomized series comparing combined and systemic antibiotic prophylaxis in elective colon surgery were identified for meta-analysis. OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of postoperative surgical site infections: risk differences, risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs); organisms found in the colon and wound fat at surgery, and in infected wounds. RESULTS: Three patients in the systemic group, and 5 in the combined group were excluded. Wound infections occurred in 5 patients in the combined group but in 17 in the systemic group (p < 0.01, RR = 0.29, 95% CI 0.11-0.75). Bacteria isolated from wound infections and wound fat were similar to those found in the colon. They were more frequent in the colon in the systemic group (p < 0.001) and occurred in wound fat in the systemic group twice as often as in the combined group (p < 0.001). By stepwise logistic regression, the presence of bacteria in wound fat at surgery was the strongest predictor of postoperative wound infection (p < 0.002). In the meta-analysis, the summary weighted risk difference in surgical site infections between groups (d(w)) and the summary RR both favoured combined prophylaxis (d(w) = 0.56, 95% CI 0.26-0.86; RR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.24-0.78; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In elective surgery of the colon combined oral and systemic antibiotics are superior to systemic antibiotics in preventing surgical site infections. Orally administered antibiotics add value by reducing bacterial loading of the colon and wound fat contamination, both associated with postoperative wound infection. Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials reported from 1975 to 1995 supports these conclusions.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.593

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations190
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicSurgical site infection preventionFrench-language works237,207