Effects of Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Patients with Open Fracture of the Extremities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of the present study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the use of alternative antibiotic regimens-including (A) antibiotic prophylaxis versus no prophylaxis, (B) longer versus shorter duration of antibiotic prophylaxis, and (C) alternative drugs-for patients with open fracture of the extremities. METHODS: Data sources included CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Cochrane database of systematic reviews from 1965 to December 2013. All randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with open fracture of the extremities were eligible. RESULTS: We identified 329 potentially eligible articles, of which seventeen proved to be eligible. In four randomized controlled trials involving 472 patients, we found a significantly lower infection rate in patients receiving antibiotic prophylaxis compared with those not receiving antibiotic prophylaxis (risk ratio = 0.37 [95% confidence interval, 0.21 to 0.66]; absolute risk reduction = 9.6% [95% confidence interval, 5.2% to 12.1%]). In three studies involving 1104 patients, we found no difference in the infection rate when a longer duration of antibiotics (three to five days) was compared with a shorter duration (one day) (risk ratio = 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.69 to 1.37). Confidence in the estimates for both questions was low to moderate. Individual comparisons of alternative drugs yielded estimates warranting only low to very low confidence. CONCLUSIONS: Results of randomized controlled trials performed to date provide evidence that antibiotic prophylaxis reduces subsequent infection and that courses as short as one day are as effective as courses of three to five days, although the evidence warrants only low to moderate confidence. Given current practice, a large, multicenter, low risk of bias, randomized controlled trial enrolling representative populations and addressing the duration of antibiotics may be the next optimum step in investigation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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 | 0.018 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.024 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".