evidence/gaps
Cochrane · systematic review · CD011876

Routes of administration of antibiotic prophylaxis for preventing infection after caesarean section

Nabhan, AF, Allam, NE, Hamed Abdel‐Aziz Salama, M · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2016 · Cochrane Library

Pregnancy and ChildbirthAMSTAR 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
7
current version
GRADE rated
6
No studies
1
Included studies
NR
No studies 1 · 14.3%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 5 · 71.4%Low 1 · 14.3%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

Intravenous route compared with irrigation (lavage) for administration of antibiotic prophylaxis for preventing infection after caesarean section

Population: pregnant women undergoing caesarean section
7 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Endometritis
Intravenous route vs irrigation (lavage)
RR 0.95 [0.7, 1.29]8 studies · 966 participantsLow
Wound infection
Intravenous route vs irrigation (lavage)
RR 0.49 [0.17, 1.43]7 studies · 859 participantsVery low
Postpartum febrile morbidity
Intravenous route vs irrigation (lavage)
RR 0.87 [0.48, 1.6]3 studies · 264 participantsVery low
Urinary tract infection
Intravenous route vs irrigation (lavage)
RR 0.74 [0.25, 2.15]5 studies · 660 participantsVery low
Serious infectious complications
Intravenous route vs irrigation (lavage)
no estimate extracted1 study · 81 participantsVery low
Adverse events (maternal)
Intravenous route vs irrigation (lavage)
no estimate extracted3 studies · 284 participantsVery low
Infant sepsis (suspected or proven) ‐ not measured
Intravenous route vs irrigation (lavage)
no estimate extractedNRNo studies