We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
META-ANALYSIS
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
REVIEW
Reducing the risk of infection for transrectal prostate biopsy with povidone-iodine: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
International Urology and Nephrology 2014 September
PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of povidone-iodine (PI) in reducing the risk of infectious complications following transrectal prostate biopsy (TRPB).
METHODS: Eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified from electronic databases (Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE). The database search, quality assessment, and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. The main outcome for the efficacy of PI was the incidence of infectious complications after TRPB.
RESULTS: Seven trials, including 2,049 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Data from the seven included RCTs favored the use of PI before TRPB to prevent infectious complications. PI for "PI versus blank control" significantly reduced fever, bacteriuria, and bacteremia compared with that for control [relative risk (RR) 0.31; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.21-0.45, P < 0.00001]. With PI versus antibiotics (ATB), patients treated with ATB alone had a significantly greater risk of bacteremia (RR 0.38; 95 % CI 0.16-0.90, P = 0.03). In "PI plus ATB versus ATB" trials, the risk of fever (RR 0.11; 95 % CI 0.02-0.85, P = 0.03) and bacteremia (RR 0.25; 95 % CI 0.08-0.75, P = 0.01) was diminished in the "PI plus ATB" group.
CONCLUSIONS: Rectal disinfection with PI provides a safe and effective method to reduce the risk of infectious complications following TRPB, regardless of mono-prophylaxis and combined prophylaxis with PI and ATB. Large, multicenter, and prospective RCTs of good quality trials are needed to confirm the efficacy of PI.
METHODS: Eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified from electronic databases (Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE). The database search, quality assessment, and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. The main outcome for the efficacy of PI was the incidence of infectious complications after TRPB.
RESULTS: Seven trials, including 2,049 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Data from the seven included RCTs favored the use of PI before TRPB to prevent infectious complications. PI for "PI versus blank control" significantly reduced fever, bacteriuria, and bacteremia compared with that for control [relative risk (RR) 0.31; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.21-0.45, P < 0.00001]. With PI versus antibiotics (ATB), patients treated with ATB alone had a significantly greater risk of bacteremia (RR 0.38; 95 % CI 0.16-0.90, P = 0.03). In "PI plus ATB versus ATB" trials, the risk of fever (RR 0.11; 95 % CI 0.02-0.85, P = 0.03) and bacteremia (RR 0.25; 95 % CI 0.08-0.75, P = 0.01) was diminished in the "PI plus ATB" group.
CONCLUSIONS: Rectal disinfection with PI provides a safe and effective method to reduce the risk of infectious complications following TRPB, regardless of mono-prophylaxis and combined prophylaxis with PI and ATB. Large, multicenter, and prospective RCTs of good quality trials are needed to confirm the efficacy of PI.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app