ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2024
Antibiotic prophylaxis vs. on‑demand antibiotic treatment in endoscopic therapy for variceal hemorrhage: A meta‑analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to conduct a meta-analysis for elucidating the effects of antibiotic prophylaxis on infection, rebleeding and mortality in patients who underwent endoscopic therapy for variceal hemorrhage. Articles on antibiotic prophylaxis and on-demand antibiotic administration following endoscopic therapy for acute variceal bleeding were searched on PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library between January 1959 and February 2024, to elucidate whether the use of prophylactic antibiotics was necessary. The quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool and RevMan software version 5.4.1 was used for meta-analysis of the data. The current meta-analysis included four RCTs and 322 patients with acute variceal bleeding who underwent endoscopic therapy. All included studies were of high quality according to the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool. According to the results of the meta-analysis, the incidence of infection in the prophylactic antibiotic group was significantly lower than that in the on-demand group [odds ratio (OR), 0.31; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.13-0.74; P=0.009]. The prophylactic antibiotic group also exhibited a lower incidence of rebleeding compared with that of the on-demand group (OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.19-0.72; P=0.003). No significant differences were noted in the incidence of mortality between the two groups (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.45-1.92; P=0.83). In conclusion, the data indicated that antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended to be used in patients who have undergone endoscopic therapy for variceal hemorrhage.
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.