Comparison of the effectiveness of two combinations of antibiotic used for perioperative prophylactic therapy during radical cystectomy: A retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This retrospective cohort study aimed to compare primary and secondary outcomes of patients undergoing radical cystectomy according to two different perioperative antimicrobial therapy protocols in 2016. METHODS: In this single-center, retrospective cohort study, we investigated data of 104 patients undergoing radical cystectomy due to bladder cancer from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2016. According to perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis, patients were divided into two groups: 48 patients received piperacillin/tazobactam 3x4.5 g intravenously (IV) combined with metronidazole 3x500 mg IV, and 56 patients received ceftriaxone 1x2 g IV combined with metronidazole 3x500 mg IV. All patients received the first dose of antibiotics 24 hours prior to the operative procedure, and it continued over the next 48 hours after the procedure. We analyzed and compared data from various primary and secondary outcomes for both groups of patients. RESULTS: In the group of patients receiving the combination of the piperacillin/tazobactam with metronidazole, the length of postoperative hospitalization was shorter (14 vs. 16 days, Z=2.24957 p=0.02383), leukocyte blood count on the first postoperative day was lower (9.80 vs. 11.15, p=0.01384), and hospital-acquired pneumonia was less common (2.08% vs. 12.5%, p=0.04688) than in the group receiving a combination of ceftriaxone and metronidazole. CONCLUSIONS: In radical cystectomy, perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis protocol using piperacillin/tazobactam combined with metronidazole proved to be more effective than the combination of ceftriaxone with metronidazole.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".