Cited by 32Surgical site infection preventionMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsNeonatal and Maternal Infections

Different classes of antibiotics given to women routinely for preventing infection at caesarean section

Alfirevic, Zarko, Gyte, Gillian ML, Dou, Lixia·2010·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

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

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd008726

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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]”

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)
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
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
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