The use of prophylactic single-dose fosfomycin in patients who undergo transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: A prospective, randomized, and controlled clinical study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We aimed to demonstrate the efficacy, safety, and convenient use of fosfomycin trometamol in the preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis (PAP) of transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate (TRUSBP) in this prospective, randomized study. METHODS: Between May 2014 and May 2015, a total of 300 patients who underwent TRUSBP were examined prospectively. Patients were randomized into two groups: group 1 consisted of 150 patients who were administered a single dose of 3 g oral fosfomycin as a PAP the night before the procedure; group 2 consisted of 150 patients who were administered 500 mg oral ciprofloxacin 60 min before the procedure as a PAP. Post-procedural febrile and afebrile infectious complications and pathological characteristics of the two groups were compared prospectively. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 63.5±0.6 years in group 1 and 62.9±0.6 years in group 2. A total of two patients (1.3%) in group 1 and nine patients (6.0%) in group 2 experienced afebrile urinary tract infection (UTI). Afebrile UTI rate was significantly higher in group 2 (1.3% s. 6.0%, p=0,032). Febrile UTI was detected in two patients in group 2 and one patient in group 1. Urine cultures revealed 35.7% fluoroquinolone resistance. As a limitation, although the sample size was appropriate due to the power calculation, we believe that comprehensive studies including larger patient cohorts are needed to support our findings. CONCLUSIONS: Due to its ease-of-use with only a single dose and lower rates of infectious complications (resistant and febrile UTIs), fosfomycin trometamol is a strong alternative for antibiotic prophylaxis in TRUSBP.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".