CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 575Surgical site infection preventionMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsNeonatal and Maternal Infections

Antibiotic prophylaxis versus no prophylaxis for preventing infection after cesarean section

Open access
Smaill, Fiona M, Grivell, Rosalie M·2014·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007482.pub3PMC PMC8078551
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The single most important risk factor for postpartum maternal infection is cesarean section. Although guidelines endorse the use of prophylactic antibiotics for women undergoing cesarean section, there is not uniform implementation of this recommendation. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 1995 and last updated in 2010. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of prophylactic antibiotics compared with no prophylactic antibiotics on infectious complications in women undergoing cesarean section. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 July 2014) and reference lists of retrieved papers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing the effects of prophylactic antibiotics versus no treatment in women undergoing cesarean section. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and carried out data extraction. The clinically important primary outcomes were wound infection, endometritis, serious maternal infectious complications and adverse effects on the infant. We presented dichotomous data as risk ratios (RR), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and combined trials in meta-analyses. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 95 studies enrolling over 15,000 women. Compared with placebo or no treatment, the use of prophylactic antibiotics in women undergoing cesarean section reduced the incidence of wound infection (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.46, 82 studies, 14,407 women), endometritis (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.42, 83 studies, 13,548 women) and maternal serious infectious complications (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.49, 32 studies, 6159 women). When only studies that included women undergoing an elective cesarean section were analyzed, there was also a reduction in the incidence of wound infections (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.82, 17 studies, 3537 women) and endometritis (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.61, 15 studies, 2502 women) with prophylactic antibiotics. Similar estimates of effect were seen whether the antibiotics were administered before the cord was clamped or after. The effect of different antibiotic regimens was studied and similar reductions in the incidence of infections were seen for most of the antibiotics and combinations.There were no data on which to estimate the effect of maternal administration of antibiotics on infant outcomes. No studies systematically collected and reported on adverse infant outcomes nor the effect of antibiotics on the developing infant immune system. No studies reported on the incidence of oral candidiasis (thrush) in babies. Maternal adverse effects were also rarely described.We judged the evidence for antibiotic treatment compared with no treatment to be of moderate quality; most studies lacked an adequate description of methods and were assessed as being at unclear risk of bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The conclusions of this review support the recommendation that prophylactic antibiotics should be routinely administered to all women undergoing cesarean section to prevent infection. Compared with placebo or no treatment, the use of prophylactic antibiotics in women undergoing cesarean section reduced the incidence of wound infection, endometritis and serious infectious complications by 60% to 70%. There were few data on adverse effects and no information on the effect of antibiotics on the baby, making the assessment of overall benefits and harms difficult. Prophylactic antibiotics given to all women undergoing elective or non-elective cesarean section is beneficial for women but there is uncertainty about the consequences for the baby.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd007482.pub3

Cites

200 of 200 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Peri-cesarean antibiotic prophylaxis (a single dose of β-lactam antibiotic) prior to cesarean delivery reduces the incidence of postpartum endometritis threefold.

    “Peri-cesarean antibiotic prophylaxis (a single dose of β-lactam antibiotic) prior to cesarean delivery reduces the incidence of postpartum endometritis threefold.[26, 27]”

    From Antimicrobial-resistant infections among postpartum women at a Ugandan referral hospital (2017) · cites this paper as [26]

    The Background’s Main results report less endometritis with prophylactic antibiotics than with placebo or no treatment (RR 0.38), approximately a threefold difference in incidence. But the review pools different antibiotics, dosing schedules, and administration times; it does not establish that a single dose of a β-lactam given before cesarean delivery produces that specific effect. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Part of this paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.

2 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

6 of the 206 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Smaill, F. M., & Grivell, R. M.
Affiliations
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • Women's and Children's Hospital (AU)
ORCID
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-10-28
Volume
2014
Issue
10
Pages
CD007482-CD007482
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
DOI
10.1002/14651858.cd007482.pub3
PMC
PMC8078551
OpenAlex
W1771339314
Cited by
575
References
206
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 58 · 2021: 52 · 2020: 54 · 2019: 48 · 2018: 42 · 2017: 49 · 2016: 30 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 33 · 2012: 19
FWCI
8.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Surgical site infection prevention
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Neonatal and Maternal Infections
Keywords
antibiotic prophylaxis, cesarean section, surgical site infection, endometritis, elective cesarean section, antibiotic adverse effects, neonatal infection
MeSH terms
Bacterial Infections, Cesarean Section, Endometritis, Female, Humans, Postoperative Complications, Pregnancy, Surgical Wound Infection, Urinary Tract Infections, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Antibiotic Prophylaxis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review