Intravenous cephalosporin versus non-cephalosporin-based prophylaxis to prevent surgical site infections in colorectal surgery patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surgical site infection (SSI) is common in colorectal surgery patients and associated with morbidity and mortality. Guidelines recommend preoperative intravenous antimicrobial prophylaxis with aerobic and anaerobic coverage to reduce SSI risk. Cephalosporin based prophylaxis (CBP) regimens are recommended as first-line prophylaxis, and non-cephalosporin based are recommended as alternative prophylaxis (AP). We evaluate the efficacy of CBP versus AP in preventing surgical site infections in colorectal surgery patients. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of studies published between 2005 and 2020 in MEDLINE and Web of Science. Studies were excluded if intravenous antimicrobial prophylaxis was not administered, or if oral and intravenous prophylaxis were routinely co-administered. Heterogeneity was reported using the Q-statistic and I2-statistic. Publication bias was evaluated using a funnel plot and Egger test for small study effects. Statistical significance was defined as a two-sided p < 0.05. 11 studies met inclusion criteria. AP was not associated with increased SSI risk at 30 days compared to CBP (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91, 1.13; OR < 1 favors AP). There was no effect size variability in subgroup analysis comparing higher-to lower-quality studies (I2 = 99%, P = 0.17). Subgroup analysis by publication year approached a significant difference in effect size between studies published prior to 2014 and later than 2014 (I2 = 99%, P = 0.06). Meta-analysis of 11 studies of SSI risk in adult colorectal surgery patients suggest that SSI risk is similar for patients receiving CBP or AP, subgroup analysis of studies published since 2014 suggest increased SSI risk with AP compared to CBP.
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 | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".