Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 241

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

Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of selective decontamination of the digestive tract. Selective Decontamination of the Digestive Tract Trialists' Collaborative Group.

Open access
·1993·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVE--To determine the clinical benefits of selective decontamination of the digestive tract in patients treated in intensive care units. DESIGN--Meta-analysis of 22 randomised trials that compared different combinations of oral non-absorbable antibiotics, with or without a systemic component, with no treatment in controls. SUBJECTS--4142 patients seen in general and specialised intensive care units around the world. 2047 received some form of antibiotic treatment, the remainder no prophylaxis. DATA ANALYSIS--Each trial was reviewed through direct contact with study investigators. Data collected were: the randomisation procedure, number of patients, number excluded from the analysis, and numbers of respiratory tract infections and deaths. Data were combined according to an intention to treat analysis with the Mantel-Haenszel-Peto method. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Respiratory tract infections and total mortality. RESULTS--Selective decontamination of the digestive tract significantly reduced respiratory tract infections (odds ratio 0.37; 95% confidence interval 0.31 to 0.43). The value of the common odds ratio for total mortality (0.90; 0.79 to 1.04) suggested at best a moderate treatment effect, reaching statistical significance only when the subgroup of trials of topical and systemic treatment combined was considered separately (odds ratio 0.80; 0.67 to 0.97). No firm conclusions could be drawn owing to large variations in patient mix and severity within and between trials. CONCLUSIONS--The findings strongly indicate that selective decontamination significantly reduces infection related morbidity in patients receiving intensive care. They also highlight why definite conclusions about the effect of prophylaxis on mortality cannot be drawn despite the large number of trials available. Based on the most favourable results obtained by pooling data from trials in which combined topical and systemic treatment was used it may be estimated that 6 (range 5-9) and 23 (13-139) patients would need to be treated to prevent one respiratory tract infection and one death respectively.

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 · 10.1136/bmj.307.6903.525

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 241

Metadata

Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1993-08-28
Volume
307
Issue
6903
Pages
525-532
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2964425872
Cited by
241
References
1
FWCI
3.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of selective decontamination of the digestive tract. Selective Decontamination of the Digestive Tract Trialists' Collaborative Group. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.307.6903.525
The paper
Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of selective decontamination of the digestive tract. Selective Decontamination of the Digestive Tract Trialists' Collaborative Group. (1993). BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.307.6903.525

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.