Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Systemic antimicrobial prophylaxis for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005571.pub3Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 14 noviembre 2013see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Review
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:
  1. Grupo Cochrane de Heridas

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2013 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

  • Allyson Lipp

    Correspondencia a: Faculty of Health, Sport and Science, Department of Care Sciences, University of South Wales, Pontypridd, UK

    [email protected]

  • Gail Lusardi

    Faculty of Health, Sport and Science, Department of Care Sciences, University of South Wales, Pontypridd, UK

Contributions of authors

AL took the lead in writing the protocol and the review, provided overall methodological expertise, entered data into RevMan, contacted authors, was involved in selecting trials for the review, performed independent data extraction and quality assessment of included studies.
GL assisted in writing the protocol and the review, provided clinical expertise, contacted specialist organisations, was involved in selecting trials for the review, performed independent data extraction and quality assessment of included trials.
Both authors revised the manuscript after peer review and read and approved the final version. Both authors contributed equally to all updates.

Contributions of editorial base:

Nicky Cullum: edited the review, advised on methodology, interpretation and review content. Approved the final review and review update prior to submission.
Sally Bell‐Syer: coordinated the editorial process. Advised on methodology, interpretation and content. Edited the review and the updated review.
Ruth Foxlee: designed the search strategy, ran the searches and edited the search methods section for the update.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • Faculty of Health, Sport and Science, University of Glamorgan, UK.

External sources

  • NIHR/Department of Health (England), (Cochrane Wounds Group), UK.

Declarations of interest

None known.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank their employer, the University of Glamorgan, for allowing them the time and resources to undertake the review.
The authors would like to thank the following referees for their comments on the review: Cochrane Wounds Group Editors (Michelle Briggs, Nicky Cullum, Gill Cranny, David Margolis); Referees (Zoe Hodges, Ernst Kuipers, David Leaper, Caroline Main, Barbara Postle) and Copy Editor, Elizabeth Royle.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2013 Nov 14

Systemic antimicrobial prophylaxis for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy

Review

Allyson Lipp, Gail Lusardi

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005571.pub3

2006 Oct 18

Systemic antimicrobial prophylaxis for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy

Review

Allyson Lipp, Gail Lusardi

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005571.pub2

2006 Jan 25

Systemic antimicrobial prophylaxis for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy

Protocol

Allyson Lipp, Gail Lusardi

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005571

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.

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

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

Methodological quality summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

Methodological quality summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study.

Comparison 1 Systemic antibiotic (IV) compared with placebo, Outcome 1 Peristomal infection.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Systemic antibiotic (IV) compared with placebo, Outcome 1 Peristomal infection.

Comparison 2 Systemic antibiotic (IV) compared with no intervention, Outcome 1 Peristomal infection.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Systemic antibiotic (IV) compared with no intervention, Outcome 1 Peristomal infection.

Comparison 3 Systemic antibiotic (IV) compared with placebo/no intervention/skin antiseptic, Outcome 1 Peristomal infection.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Systemic antibiotic (IV) compared with placebo/no intervention/skin antiseptic, Outcome 1 Peristomal infection.

Comparison 3 Systemic antibiotic (IV) compared with placebo/no intervention/skin antiseptic, Outcome 2 Allocation concealment.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 Systemic antibiotic (IV) compared with placebo/no intervention/skin antiseptic, Outcome 2 Allocation concealment.

Comparison 3 Systemic antibiotic (IV) compared with placebo/no intervention/skin antiseptic, Outcome 3 Sponsorship.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.3

Comparison 3 Systemic antibiotic (IV) compared with placebo/no intervention/skin antiseptic, Outcome 3 Sponsorship.

Comparison 4 Systemic antibiotic compared with systemic antibiotic, Outcome 1 Systemic antibiotic (IV) compared with systemic antibiotic (IV).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 Systemic antibiotic compared with systemic antibiotic, Outcome 1 Systemic antibiotic (IV) compared with systemic antibiotic (IV).

Comparison 4 Systemic antibiotic compared with systemic antibiotic, Outcome 2 Systemic antibiotic (PEG) compared with systemic antibiotic (IV).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.2

Comparison 4 Systemic antibiotic compared with systemic antibiotic, Outcome 2 Systemic antibiotic (PEG) compared with systemic antibiotic (IV).

Comparison 5 Systemic antibiotic (IV) compared with systemic antibiotic (IV) and skin antiseptic, Outcome 1 Peristomal infection.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5 Systemic antibiotic (IV) compared with systemic antibiotic (IV) and skin antiseptic, Outcome 1 Peristomal infection.

Comparison 6 Skin antiseptic compared with systemic antibiotic (IV) and skin antiseptic, Outcome 1 Peristomal infection.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.1

Comparison 6 Skin antiseptic compared with systemic antibiotic (IV) and skin antiseptic, Outcome 1 Peristomal infection.

Comparison 1. Systemic antibiotic (IV) compared with placebo

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Peristomal infection Show forest plot

8

586

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.34 [0.22, 0.53]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Systemic antibiotic (IV) compared with placebo
Comparison 2. Systemic antibiotic (IV) compared with no intervention

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Peristomal infection Show forest plot

3

623

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.30 [0.17, 0.53]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. Systemic antibiotic (IV) compared with no intervention
Comparison 3. Systemic antibiotic (IV) compared with placebo/no intervention/skin antiseptic

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Peristomal infection Show forest plot

12

1271

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.36 [0.26, 0.50]

2 Allocation concealment Show forest plot

12

1271

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.47 [0.34, 0.65]

2.1 adequate allocation concealment

8

554

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.58 [0.38, 0.88]

2.2 unclear/inadequate concealment

4

717

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.34 [0.21, 0.58]

3 Sponsorship Show forest plot

12

1271

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.36 [0.26, 0.50]

3.1 Trials with no sponsorship

10

962

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.38 [0.25, 0.56]

3.2 Trials with sponsorship

2

309

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.32 [0.18, 0.58]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 3. Systemic antibiotic (IV) compared with placebo/no intervention/skin antiseptic
Comparison 4. Systemic antibiotic compared with systemic antibiotic

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Systemic antibiotic (IV) compared with systemic antibiotic (IV) Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 Peristomal infection

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Systemic antibiotic (PEG) compared with systemic antibiotic (IV) Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 4. Systemic antibiotic compared with systemic antibiotic
Comparison 5. Systemic antibiotic (IV) compared with systemic antibiotic (IV) and skin antiseptic

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Peristomal infection Show forest plot

1

68

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

15.78 [1.90, 130.86]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 5. Systemic antibiotic (IV) compared with systemic antibiotic (IV) and skin antiseptic
Comparison 6. Skin antiseptic compared with systemic antibiotic (IV) and skin antiseptic

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Peristomal infection Show forest plot

1

62

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

15.63 [1.84, 133.09]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 6. Skin antiseptic compared with systemic antibiotic (IV) and skin antiseptic