MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408468624 · doi:10.1097/ogx.0000000000001371

Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Obstetrics and Gynecology: A Comparative Review of Guidelines

2025· review· en· W4408468624 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sonia Giouleka, Ιoannis Tsakiridis, Eleni-Markella Chalkia-Prapa, Florentia Katzi, Anastasios Liberis, Georgios Michos, Ioannis Kalogiannidis, Apostolos Mamopoulos, Themistoklis Dagklis

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetrical & Gynecological Survey · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical site infection prevention
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObstetrics and gynaecologyAntibiotic prophylaxisObstetricsGynecologyAntibioticsPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: The administration of prophylactic antibiotics in obstetrics and gynecology represents a pivotal intervention with a major contribution to the prevention of maternal and neonatal infectious morbidity. Objectives: The aim of this study was to review and compare the most recently published guidelines on prophylactic antibiotic use in obstetric and gynecologic procedures. Evidence Acquisition: A descriptive review of guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada, and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists on antibiotic prophylaxis was carried out. Results: There is a consensus among the reviewed guidelines regarding the importance of antibiotic prophylaxis prior to cesarean delivery, hysterectomy, colporrhaphy and surgical-induced abortions, the optimal choice of antibiotics, and the timing of administration, as well as the indications for increased and additional doses. First-generation cephalosporins are unanimously recommended as first-line antibiotics. All the reviewed guidelines recommend antibiotic prophylaxis in case of preterm prelabor rupture of membranes, whereas they discourage routine antibiotic use in case of active preterm labor with intact membranes or cervical cerclage placement. There is also an overall agreement that antibiotic prophylaxis should not be given for hysteroscopic and laparoscopic procedures with no entry into the bowel or the vagina, endometrial biopsy, intrauterine device insertion, or cervical tissue excision surgeries. Moreover, all the guidelines agree that women undergoing hysterosalpingography should receive a course of antibiotics only when the fallopian tubes are abnormal or there is a history of pelvic inflammatory disease. In contrast, inconsistency was identified on the need of antibiotic prophylaxis in case of obstetric anal sphincter injuries, operative vaginal delivery, and early pregnancy loss. Finally, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists states that antibiotics should not be routinely offered for oocyte retrieval and embryo transfer. Conclusions: Infectious complications following both obstetric and gynecological procedures are significant contributors of morbidity and mortality, rendering their prevention using antibiotic prophylaxis a crucial aspect of preoperative care. Nevertheless, antibiotic overuse should be avoided. Thus, it seems of paramount importance to develop consistent international practice protocols for the appropriate use of antibiotics in everyday practice to minimize their adverse effects and maximize their associated benefits.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.316
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.892
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.316
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.197
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObstetrical & Gynecological SurveySame topicSurgical site infection preventionFrench-language works237,207