Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Antibiotic prophylaxis for operative vaginal delivery

Esta versión no es la más reciente

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004455.pub4Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 05 agosto 2017see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Review
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:
  1. Grupo Cochrane de Embarazo y parto

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2017 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

  • Tippawan Liabsuetrakul

    Correspondencia a: Epidemiology Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Thailand

    [email protected]

    [email protected]

  • Thanapan Choobun

    Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Thailand

  • Krantarat Peeyananjarassri

    Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Thailand

  • Q Monir Islam

    Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK

Contributions of authors

Tippawan Liabsuetrakul (TL) gathered background information and wrote the first and final draft of the protocol. TL assessed trial eligibility and methodological quality, extracted data, wrote the first draft of the review and co‐ordinated the comments from the other review authors. For the 2008 update, TL reviewed the draft and final version of the updated review. For the 2012, 2014 and the current 2017 update, TL reviewed and updated the text.
 
Thanapan Choobun (TC) gathered background information and commented on the draft protocol. TC assessed trial eligibility and methodological quality, extracted data and commented on the draft review. For the 2008 update, TC approved the final version of the updated review. For the 2012, 2014 and the current 2017 update, TC approved the version for publication.
 
Krantarat Peeyananjarassri (KP) gathered background information and commented on the draft protocol. KP commented on the draft review. For the 2008 update, KP approved the final version of the updated review. For the 2012, 2014 and the current 2017 update, KP approved the version for publication.
 
Monir Islam (MI) supervised the development of the protocol and review. MI commented on the draft protocol and review. For the 2008 update, MI approved the final version of the updated review. For the 2012, 2014 and the current 2017 update, MI approved the version for publication.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Thailand.

External sources

  • Thailand Research Fund (Distinguished Research Professor Award), Thailand.

  • UNDP‐UNFPA‐UNICEF‐WHO‐World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Reproductive Health and Research (RHR), World Health Organization, Switzerland.

Declarations of interest

Tippawan Liabsuetrakul: none known.

Thanapan Choobun: none known.

Krantarat Peeyananjarassri: none known.

Q Monir Islam: none known.

Acknowledgements

We thank Zarko Alfirevic, Eduardo Bergel, Mario Festin, Simon Gates and the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Consumer Panel for their helpful comments on the protocol and the first published version of this review. We also thank Lynn Hampson for the translation (De Meeus 1991) and Erika Ota for preparing the 'Summary of findings' table.

Erika Ota's work was financially supported by the UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Reproductive Health and Research (RHR), World Health Organization. The named authors are responsible for the views expressed in this publication (2014 update).

This project was supported by the National Institute for Health Research, via Cochrane Infrastructure funding to Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth. The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Systematic Reviews Programme, NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2020 Mar 26

Antibiotic prophylaxis for operative vaginal delivery

Review

Tippawan Liabsuetrakul, Thanapan Choobun, Krantarat Peeyananjarassri, Q Monir Islam

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004455.pub5

2017 Aug 05

Antibiotic prophylaxis for operative vaginal delivery

Review

Tippawan Liabsuetrakul, Thanapan Choobun, Krantarat Peeyananjarassri, Q Monir Islam

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004455.pub4

2014 Oct 13

Antibiotic prophylaxis for operative vaginal delivery

Review

Tippawan Liabsuetrakul, Thanapan Choobun, Krantarat Peeyananjarassri, Q Monir Islam

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004455.pub3

2004 Jul 19

Antibiotic prophylaxis for operative vaginal delivery

Review

Tippawan Liabsuetrakul, Thanapan Choobun, Krantarat Peeyananjarassri, Q Monir Islam

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004455.pub2

2003 Oct 20

Antibiotic prophylaxis for operative vaginal delivery

Protocol

Tippawan Liabsuetrakul, Thanapan Choobun, Krantarat Peeyananjarassri, Monir Islam

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004455

Differences between protocol and review

Methods updated to current standard PCG methods (2017).

We added in an additional search of ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP).

Keywords

MeSH

PICO

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

El uso y la enseñanza del modelo PICO están muy extendidos en el ámbito de la atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia para formular preguntas y estrategias de búsqueda y para caracterizar estudios o metanálisis clínicos. PICO son las siglas en inglés de cuatro posibles componentes de una pregunta de investigación: paciente, población o problema; intervención; comparación; desenlace (outcome).

Para saber más sobre el uso del modelo PICO, puede consultar el Manual Cochrane.

Study flow diagram.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram.

'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 1 Endometritis.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 1 Endometritis.

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 2 Maternal length of stay.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 2 Maternal length of stay.

Summary of findings for the main comparison. Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment for operative vaginal delivery

Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment for operative vaginal delivery

Population: women undergoing operative vaginal delivery
Settings: a hospital in USA
Intervention: any antibiotics

Comparison: placebo or no treatment

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Control

Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment

Endometritis

Study population

RR 0.07
(0 to 1.21)

393
(1 study)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low1

35 per 1000

2 per 1000
(0 to 42)

Moderate

35 per 1000

2 per 1000
(0 to 42)

Maternal length of hospital stay (days)

The mean maternal length of stay in the intervention groups was
0.09 higher
(0.23 lower to 0.41 higher)

393
(1 study)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low1

Fever

Not estimable

0 (no study)

See comment

This outcome was not reported in the one included study.

Infected episiotomy/perineal/vaginal laceration

Not estimable

0 (no study)

See comment

This outcome was not reported in the one included study.

Urinary tract infection

Not estimable

0 (no study)

See comment

This outcome was not reported in the one included study.

Serious infectious complications

Not estimable

0 (no study)

See comment

This outcome was not reported in the one included study.

Maternal adverse reactions

Not estimable

0 (no study)

See comment

This outcome was not reported in the one included study.

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio;

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

1 Wide confidence interval crossing the line of no effect, few events and a small sample size.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment for operative vaginal delivery
Comparison 1. Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Endometritis Show forest plot

1

393

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.07 [0.00, 1.21]

2 Maternal length of stay Show forest plot

1

393

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.09 [‐0.23, 0.41]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Any antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment