MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414130359 · doi:10.1016/j.euros.2025.08.007

Rectal Swab–based Targeted Prophylactic Antibiotics Reduce Infectious Complications After Transrectal Prostate Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2025· review· en· W4414130359 on OpenAlex
Ichiro Tsuboi, Mehdi Kardoust Parizi, Akihiro Matsukawa, Marcin Miszczyk, Tamás Fazekas, Angelo Cormio, Tatsushi Kawada, Satoshi Katayama, Takehiro Iwata, Kensuke Bekku, Koichiro Wada, Pierre I Karakiewicz, Piotr Chłosta, Alberto Briganti, Motoo Araki, Shahrokh F. Shariat

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Urology Open Science · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill University Health Centre
FundersAgencja Badań MedycznychNarodowa Agencja Wymiany AkademickiejEuropean Association of Urology
KeywordsProstateAntibioticsRandomized controlled trialUrinary systemProstate biopsyComplicationAntibiotic prophylaxis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and objective Transperineal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy is the recommended approach in guidelines, while transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUS-PB) is still widely used to diagnose prostate cancer (PCa); however, it is associated with a significant rate of infectious complications. We aimed to assess the efficacy of targeted prophylactic antibiotics (TPAs), based on rectal swabs, in reducing the incidence of infectious complications after TRUS-PB compared with empiric prophylactic antibiotics. Methods PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus were queried in December 2024 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing infectious complications between patients who received TPAs based on rectal swab culture before TRUS-PB and those who received empiric prophylactic antibiotics before TRUS-PB (PROSPERO: CRD42024523794). The primary outcomes were the incidence rates of febrile urinary tract infection (fUTI) and sepsis. Key findings and limitations Overall, nine RCTs ( n = 3002) were included in our analyses. The incidence of fUTI was approximately half as high in patients who received TPAs as in those who received empiric prophylactic antibiotics ( n = 3002, 2.7% vs 5.2%, risk ratio [RR]: 0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.36–0.81, p = 0.003). Based on these pooled incidence rates, the number of patients needed to treat to prevent fUTI after TRUS-PB was 40; however, there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of sepsis between patients receiving TPAs and those who received empiric antibiotic prophylaxis ( n = 2735, 1.3% vs 1.8%, RR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.31–1.75, p = 0.4). Conclusions and clinical implications TPAs based on rectal swab culture significantly reduces the incidence of fUTI in patients who undergo TRUS-PB for PCa diagnosis compared with that in patients who receive empiric prophylactic antibiotics; however, there is insufficient evidence to assess its effect on the risk of sepsis. We recommend, based on the clinically relevant reduction in the incidence of fUTI, performing rectal swab–based TPAs in patients undergoing TRUS-PB. Patient summary We reviewed infections occurring after transrectal prostate biopsy in over 3000 patients. The use of antibiotics chosen based on a simple rectal swab decreased the rate of postbiopsy fever and urinary tract infections by half compared with the use of standard antibiotics. More research is needed to understand whether this approach also prevents the rare but serious complication of sepsis.

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.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.660
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0390.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.321 · 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