Different classes of antibiotics given to women routinely for preventing infection at caesarean section
Abstract
Background Caesarean section increases the risk of postpartum infection for women and prophylactic antibiotics have been shown to reduce the incidence; however, there are adverse effects. It is important to identify the most effective class of antibiotics to use and those with the least adverse effects. Objectives To determine, from the best available evidence, the balance of benefits and harms between different classes of antibiotic given prophylactically to women undergoing caesarean section. Search strategy We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (April 2010) and reference lists of retrieved papers. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials comparing different classes of prophylactic antibiotics given to women undergoing caesarean section. We excluded trials that compared drugs with placebo or drugs within a specific class; these are assessed in other Cochrane Reviews. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and carried out data extraction. Main results We included 29 studies of which 25 provided data on 6367 women. There was a lack of good quality data and important outcomes often included only small numbers of women. This meant we could only conclude that the current evidence shows no overall difference between the different classes of antibiotics in terms of reducing maternal infections after caesarean sections. However, none of the studies…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Guidelines encourage consideration of local bacterial resistance when prescribing antibiotics for postpartum infection treatment and prophylaxis.
“Guidelines encourage consideration of local bacterial resistance when prescribing antibiotics for postpartum infection treatment and prophylaxis,[29, 30]”
From Antimicrobial-resistant infections among postpartum women at a Ugandan referral hospital (2017) · cites this paper as [29]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 110 · Cited by 32
- Authors
- Alfirevic, Z., Gyte, G. M., & Dou, L.
- Affiliations
- University of Liverpool (GB)
- ORCID
- Gyte, Gillian ML
- Venue
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
- Publisher
- John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
- Published
- 2010-10-06
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- CD008726-CD008726
- ISSN
- 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4237698481
- Cited by
- 32
- References
- 110
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 4
- Type
- reference entry
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- new_version (2014-11-17)
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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
- cesarean section, antibiotic prophylaxis, postpartum infection, cephalosporins, penicillin, antibiotic adverse effects, bacterial resistance, maternal infection, neonatal outcomes
- MeSH terms
- Anti-Bacterial Agents, Bacterial Infections, Cesarean Section, Female, Humans, Infant, Newborn, Postoperative Complications, Pregnancy, 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