Effect measure modification in an RCT of antibiotic prophylaxis in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A secondary analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Antimicrobial resistance is a growing public health threat. To alleviate selective pressure which leads to the emergence and proliferation of resistance, and to preserve the utility of treatments where they are needed the most, antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) could consider revising surgical antibacterial prophylaxis protocols for low-risk procedures such as laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Methods: Publicly available data was used from a well-powered randomized controlled trial conducted by Matsui and colleagues during 2007-2013 in Japan on the effectiveness of prophylactic antibacterial treatment on reducing post-operative infections following laparoscopic cholecystectomy in low-risk patients. A total of 1037 patients were randomized to receive treatment or no treatment. After randomization, laparoscopic cholecystectomies were converted to open procedures in 28 patients, 14 in each arm, constituting a deviation from the protocol and the administration of additional antibacterial treatment. The original study included both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses, finding statistically significant reductions in post-operative infections in the treatment vs no treatment arm (1.2% vs 6.7%, p<0.0001; 1.0% vs 5.9%, p<0.0001, respectively). In the present analysis I assessed the extent to which type of procedure modified the effect of antibacterial prophylaxis on post-operative infection using both additive and multiplicative interaction. Risk and risk differences were estimated using a linear-binomial model and risk ratios were estimated using a log-binomial model. Alpha was set to 0.10. The lowest risk categories for each variable, being assigned to treatment and receiving a laparoscopic procedure, defined the common reference category. Results: A 35 percentage point (pp) increase in the risk of post-op infections relative to the reference category was attributable to the joint effects of omitting prophylaxis and conversion to an open procedure (90% CI 14, 56), compared to a 5 pp increase attributable to omission of prophylaxis (90% CI 3, 7) or a 6 pp increase attributable to conversion to an open procedure (90% CI -5, 18) by themselves. The interaction contrast capturedthis super-additive 24 pp increase in risk (90% CI -1, 47). The relative excess risk due to interaction was 23.81 (90% CI -5.56, 53.19), suggesting a departure from additivity as well. Conclusions: Patients undergoing open cholecystectomies stand to benefit the most from antibacterial prophylaxis compared to patients who have laparoscopic cholecystectomies. ASPs could consider reducing or eliminating surgical prophylaxis in low-risk procedures such as laparoscopic cholecystectomy to alleviate selection pressure for antibacterial resistant organisms and preserve its effectiveness for people undergoing higher risk procedures.
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 | 0.121 | 0.197 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".