Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 299

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

SINGLE‐VERSUS MULTIPLE–DOSE ANTIMICROBIAL PROPHYLAXIS FOR MAJOR SURGERY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

McDonald, Malcolm, Grabsch, Elizabeth, Marshall, Caroline, Forbes, Andrew·1998·Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery

Abstract

Background: Single‐dose antimicrobial prophylaxis for major surgery is widely accepted principle; recommendations have been based on laboratory studies and numerous clinical trials published in the last 25 years. In practice, single‐dose prophylaxis has not been universally accepted and multiple‐dose regimens are still used in some centres. Moreover, the principle has recently been challenged by the results of an Australian study of vascular surgery. The aim of this current systematic review is to determine the overall efficacy of single versus multiple–dose antimicrobial prophylaxis for major surgery and across surgical disciplines. Methods: Relevant studies were identified in the medical literature using the MEDLINE database and other search strategies. Trials included in the review were prospective and randomized, had the same antimicrobial in each treatment arm and were published in English. Rates of postoperative surgical site infections (SSI) were extracted, 2 × 2 tables prepared and odds ratios (OR) [with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI)] calculated. Data were then combined using fixed and random effects models to provide an overall figure. In this context, high value for the combined OR, with 95% CI > 1.0, indicates superiority of multiple–dose regimens and low OR, with 95% CI < 1.0, suggests the opposite. A combined OR close to 1.0, with narrow 95% CI straddling 1.0, indicates no clear advantage of one regimen over another. Further subgroup analyses were also performed. Results: Combined OR by both fixed (1.06,95% CI, 0.89–1.25) and random effects (1.04, 95% CI, 0.86–1.25) models indicated no clear advantage of either single or multiple‐dose regimens in preventing SSI. Likewise, subgroup analysis showed no statistically significant differences associated with type of antimicrobial used (beta‐lactam vs other), blinded wound assessment, length of the multiple–dose arm (> 24 h vs 24 h or less) or type of surgery (obstetric and gynaecological vs other). Conclusions: Continued use of single–dose antimicrobial prophylaxis for major surgery is recommended. Further studies are required, especially in previously neglected surgical disciplines.

Overview

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 · 10.1111/j.1445-2197.1998.tb04785.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 299

Metadata

Authors
McDonald, M., Grabsch, E., Marshall, C., & Forbes, A.
Venue
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1998-06
Volume
68
Issue
6
Pages
388-395
ISSN
0004-8682 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2026621002
Cited by
299
References
1
FWCI
1.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: SINGLE‐VERSUS MULTIPLE–DOSE ANTIMICROBIAL PROPHYLAXIS FOR MAJOR SURGERY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1445-2197.1998.tb04785.x
The paper
McDonald, M., Grabsch, E., Marshall, C., & Forbes, A. (1998). SINGLE‐VERSUS MULTIPLE–DOSE ANTIMICROBIAL PROPHYLAXIS FOR MAJOR SURGERY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1445-2197.1998.tb04785.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.