ReviewInternational wound journal2023
Comparative effectiveness of oral antibiotics, probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics in the prevention of postoperative infections in patients undergoing colorectal surgery: A network meta-analysis.
Review in International wound journal, 2023. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Efficacy of probiotic and synbiotic supplementation on the length of hospital stays and risk of postoperative mortality in patients undergoing surgery: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials.European journal of medical research · 2026Review
- Impact of gut microbiota on colorectal anastomotic healing (Review).Molecular and clinical oncology · 2025Review
- Comparative effectiveness of oral antibiotics, probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics in the prevention of postoperative infections in patients undergoing colorectal surgery: A network meta-analysis.International wound journal · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Oral antibiotics (OAB), probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics are reported to be effective for preventing postoperative infection following colorectal surgery, but the comparative effectiveness between them has not been studied. To compare these interventions through a network meta-analysis. Ovid Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL) were searched from inception to January 1, 2022 without any language restriction. Two reviewers independently screened the retrieved articles, assessed risk of bias, and extracted information from the included randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcome was infection rate, and the secondary outcome was anastomotic leakage rate. 4322 records were retrieved after literature search, and 20 RCTs recruiting 3726 participants were finally included. The analysis showed that usual care (UC) + Synbiotics ranked the most effective treatment (SUCRA = 0.968), UC + OAB ranked the second (SUCRA = 0.797), and UC + IAB ranked the third (SUCRA = 0.678) for preventing postoperative infection rate, but only UC + OAB achieved statistical significance. UC + OAB was the most effective treatment (SUCRA = 0.927) for preventing anastomotic leakage rate. Our study confirmed that preoperative administration of OAB was associated with lower infection rate and anastomotic leakage rate than placebo and UC alone. However, the beneficial effect of probiotics and synbiotics should still be investigated by large-scale randomised controlled trials.
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.