Cochrane · systematic review · CD010808
Prophylactic antibiotics for penetrating abdominal trauma: duration of use and antibiotic choice
Herrod, PJ, Boyd‐Carson, H, Doleman, B, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2019 · Cochrane Library
InjuriesAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
21
current version
GRADE rated
21
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 21 · 100%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
More than 24 hours of antibiotics compared to 24 hours of antibiotics for penetrating abdominal trauma
Population: people undergoing laparotomy for penetrating abdominal trauma
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Abdominal surgical site infection More than 24 hours of antibiotics vs 24 hours of antibiotics | RR 1 [0.81, 1.23] | 7 studies · 1261 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness |
Mortality More than 24 hours of antibiotics vs 24 hours of antibiotics | OR 1.67 [0.73, 3.82] | 7 studies · 1261 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness |
Intra‐abdominal infection More than 24 hours of antibiotics vs 24 hours of antibiotics | RR 1.23 [0.84, 1.8] | 6 studies · 1111 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness |
Single dose of antibiotics compared to 24 hours of antibiotics for penetrating abdominal trauma
Population: people undergoing laparotomy for penetrating abdominal trauma
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Abdominal surgical site infection Single dose of antibiotics vs 24 hours of antibiotics | RR 1.48 [0.87, 2.52] | 1 study · 360 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Mortality Single dose of antibiotics vs 24 hours of antibiotics | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 360 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Intra‐abdominal infection Single dose of antibiotics vs 24 hours of antibiotics | RR 0.76 [0.25, 2.32] | 1 study · 360 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Anaerobic coverage only compared to gram‐positive, gram‐negative, and anaerobic coverage for penetrating abdominal trauma
Population: people undergoing laparotomy for penetrating abdominal trauma
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Abdominal surgical site infection Anaerobic coverage only vs gram‐positive, gram‐negative, and anaerobic coverage | RR 1.46 [0.79, 2.71] | 4 studies · 395 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Mortality Anaerobic coverage only vs gram‐positive, gram‐negative, and anaerobic coverage | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 309 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Intra‐abdominal infection Anaerobic coverage only vs gram‐positive, gram‐negative, and anaerobic coverage | RR 2.46 [0.66, 9.14] | 3 studies · 309 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Anaerobic coverage only compared to gram‐positive and gram‐negative coverage for penetrating abdominal trauma
Population: people undergoing laparotomy for penetrating abdominal trauma
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Abdominal surgical site infection Anaerobic coverage only vs gram‐positive and gram‐negative coverage | RR 0.68 [0.32, 1.45] | 2 studies · 160 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Mortality Anaerobic coverage only vs gram‐positive and gram‐negative coverage | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 160 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Intra‐abdominal infection Anaerobic coverage only vs gram‐positive and gram‐negative coverage | RR 0.56 [0.15, 2.07] | 1 study · 66 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Anaerobic coverage only compared to gram‐negative and anaerobic coverage for penetrating abdominal trauma
Population: people undergoing laparotomy for penetrating abdominal trauma
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Abdominal surgical site infection Anaerobic coverage only vs gram‐negative and anaerobic coverage | RR 1.02 [0.68, 1.52] | 4 studies · 523 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Mortality Anaerobic coverage only vs gram‐negative and anaerobic coverage | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 417 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Intra‐abdominal infection Anaerobic coverage only vs gram‐negative and anaerobic coverage | RR 1.17 [0.59, 2.32] | 3 studies · 437 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Gram‐negative and anaerobic coverage compared to gram‐positive, gram‐negative, and anaerobic coverage for penetrating abdominal trauma
Population: people undergoing laparotomy for penetrating abdominal trauma
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Abdominal surgical site infection Gram‐negative and anaerobic coverage vs gram‐positive, gram‐negative, and anaerobic coverage | RR 1.4 [0.55, 3.56] | 6 studies · 516 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Mortality Gram‐negative and anaerobic coverage vs gram‐positive, gram‐negative, and anaerobic coverage | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 177 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Intra‐abdominal infection Gram‐negative and anaerobic coverage vs gram‐positive, gram‐negative, and anaerobic coverage | RR 1.19 [0.43, 3.28] | 5 studies · 430 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Gram‐positive and gram‐negative coverage compared to gram‐negative and anaerobic coverage for penetrating abdominal trauma
Population: people undergoing laparotomy for penetrating abdominal trauma
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Abdominal surgical site infection Gram‐positive and gram‐negative coverage vs gram‐negative and anaerobic coverage | RR 1.1 [0.65, 1.88] | 3 studies · 555 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Mortality Gram‐positive and gram‐negative coverage vs gram‐negative and anaerobic coverage | OR 0.55 [0.11, 2.77] | 3 studies · 555 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Intra‐abdominal infection Gram‐positive and gram‐negative coverage vs gram‐negative and anaerobic coverage | RR 1.08 [0.59, 1.98] | 3 studies · 555 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |