ArticlePublic health action2021
Surgical antibiotic prophylaxis administration practices.
Article in Public health action, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- When Antimicrobial Treatment and Surgical Prophylaxis Collide: A Stewardship Opportunity.Hospital pharmacy · 2024Article
- Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Surgery: Current Insights and Future Directions for Surgical Site Infection Prevention.Cureus · 2023Review
- Surgical Antibiotic Prophylaxis Administration Improved after introducing Dedicated Guidelines: A Before-and-After Study from Dhulikhel Hospital in Nepal (2019-2023).Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2023Article
- Incidence of Surgical Site Infection and Use of Antibiotics among Patients Who Underwent Caesarean Section and Herniorrhaphy at a Regional Referral Hospital, Sierra Leone.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
settingA referral hospital in Kavre, Nepal.
objectivesTo assess 1) compliance with National Antibiotic Treatment Guidelines (NATG), specifically, whether the administration of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP) (initial dosing and redosing) was in compliance with NATG for patients who were and were not eligible, and 2) development of surgical site infections (SSIs) among patients who underwent surgery in the Department of General Surgery (July-December 2019).
designThis was a retrospective cohort analysis.
resultsThe analysis included 846 patients, of which 717 (85%) patients were eligible for SAP and 129 (15%) were ineligible. Of those eligible, 708 (99%) received the initial dose; while 65 (50%) of the ineligible did not receive any dose. Of those who received the initial dose, 164 (23%) were eligible for redosing. Of these, only 23 (14%) received at least one redosing and 141 (86%) did not receive it. Overall compliance with NATG was achieved in 75% (632/846) of patients. SSIs occurred in 23 (3%) patients, 8 (35%) of whom did not have SAP administered according to NATG.
conclusionA relatively high overall compliance with NATG for SAP administration was reported. Recommendations were made to improve compliance among those who were ineligible for SAP and those who were eligible for redosing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.