We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
META-ANALYSIS
REVIEW
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Single dose versus multiple dose of antibiotic prophylaxis in caesarean section: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND: Prophylactic antibiotics are traditionally given as a single dose for caesarean section. However, inconsistent application of recommendations and recent evidence prompted a literature review.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the optimal regimen for antibiotic prophylaxis in caesarean section by comparing single versus multiple doses of the same intervention.
SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE, Web of Knowledge, SCOPUS, CENTRAL and ongoing trials databases were searched. Reference lists were reviewed and international groups contacted.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCT) comparing single with multiple dose regimens of the same antibiotic prophylaxis. Quasi-RCT and abstracts were suitable for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Reviewers independently extracted data and assessed quality of evidence. A random-effects model was used and results presented as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
MAIN RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included, involving 2695 women. Nonsignificant differences were observed between single dose and multiple dose antibiotic prophylaxis in the incidence of postpartum infectious morbidity (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.75-1.20, I2 = 25%), endometritis (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.74-1.42, I2 = 0%) and wound infection (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.72-2.08, I2 = 0%). A trend towards lower risk of urinary tract infection was seen with multiple dose (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.34-1.24, I2 = 0%).
CONCLUSIONS: There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there is a difference between single and multiple dose regimens in reducing the incidence of infectious morbidity after caesarean section. The quality of evidence was very low and well-designed RCTs are needed.
TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Insufficient evidence of difference between dosage regimens of antibiotic prophylaxis in caesarean section.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the optimal regimen for antibiotic prophylaxis in caesarean section by comparing single versus multiple doses of the same intervention.
SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE, Web of Knowledge, SCOPUS, CENTRAL and ongoing trials databases were searched. Reference lists were reviewed and international groups contacted.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCT) comparing single with multiple dose regimens of the same antibiotic prophylaxis. Quasi-RCT and abstracts were suitable for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Reviewers independently extracted data and assessed quality of evidence. A random-effects model was used and results presented as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
MAIN RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included, involving 2695 women. Nonsignificant differences were observed between single dose and multiple dose antibiotic prophylaxis in the incidence of postpartum infectious morbidity (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.75-1.20, I2 = 25%), endometritis (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.74-1.42, I2 = 0%) and wound infection (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.72-2.08, I2 = 0%). A trend towards lower risk of urinary tract infection was seen with multiple dose (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.34-1.24, I2 = 0%).
CONCLUSIONS: There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there is a difference between single and multiple dose regimens in reducing the incidence of infectious morbidity after caesarean section. The quality of evidence was very low and well-designed RCTs are needed.
TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Insufficient evidence of difference between dosage regimens of antibiotic prophylaxis in caesarean section.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
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