This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal

A Review of Trials of Antibiotic Prophylaxis

Mary Evans; Alan V. Pollock, MB, ChB, FRCS

Arch Surg. 1984;119(1):109-113.

Abstract
• The ability of a small-scale random-control clinical trial comprising less than 500 patients to disclose clinically important differences between treatment groups depends on the event rate in the control group. The high rate of wound infection after abdominal operations has attracted many trials of methods of antibiotic prophylaxis. We reviewed all of the pertinent English literature recorded in Index Medicus in 1980 and 1981. We examined 45 articles for defects in design, analysis, and presentation. Of the 45 articles, 25 reported statistically significant differences between treatment groups and 20, no significant differences. Unsatisfactory methods of randomization were used in four trials, ethics were questionable in 22, statistical methods were incorrect in 31, and presentation was inadequate in 40. We concluded that there is room for improvement in the conduct of clinical trials.

(Arch Surg 1984;119:109-113)

Author Affiliations
From Scarborough (England) Hospital.

Footnotes
Accepted for publication Aug 24, 1983.

Read before the Third Annual Meeting of the Surgical Infection Society, Fort Lauderdale, Fla, May 10, 1983.

Reprint requests to Scarborough Hospital, Scarborough, North Yorkshire YO12 6QL, England (Dr Pollock).

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Blinding of Outcomes in Trials of Orthopaedic Trauma: An Opportunity to Enhance the Validity of Clinical Trials
Karanicolas et al.
JBJS 2008;90:1026-1033.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Povidone-Iodine vs Sodium Hypochlorite Enema for Mechanical Preparation Before Elective Open Colonic or Rectal Resection With Primary Anastomosis: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial
Valverde et al.
Arch Surg 2006;141:1168-1174.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Reporting the Recruitment Process in Clinical Trials: Who Are These Patients and How Did They Get There?
Gross et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2002;137:10-16.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Decreasing Catheter Colonization Through the Use of an Antiseptic-Impregnated Catheter: A Continuous Quality Improvement Project
Collin
Chest 1999;115:1632-1640.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The CONSORT Statement: Will It Lead to Improved Reporting of Clinical Trials in Ophthalmology?
Hawkins
Arch Ophthalmol 1999;117:677-680.
FULL TEXT  

Senna vs Polyethylene Glycol for Mechanical Preparation the Evening Before Elective Colonic or Rectal Resection: A Multicenter Controlled Trial
Valverde et al.
Arch Surg 1999;134:514-519.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Adherence to Published Standards of Reporting: A Comparison of Placebo-Controlled Trials Published in English or German
Junker
JAMA 1998;280:247-249.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Prophylactic Abdominal Drainage After Elective Colonic Resection and Suprapromontory Anastomosis: A Multicenter Study Controlled by Randomization
Merad et al.
Arch Surg 1998;133:309-314.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

A Comparison of the Roles of Cefamandole and Ceftriaxone in Abdominal Surgery
Hall et al.
Arch Surg 1991;126:512-516.
ABSTRACT  

Clostridium difficile Disease in a Department of Surgery: The Significance of Prophylactic Antibiotics
Yee et al.
Arch Surg 1991;126:241-246.
ABSTRACT  

Prophylactic Antibiotherapy in Abdominal Surgery: First- vs Third-Generation Cephalosporins
Rotman et al.
Arch Surg 1989;124:323-327.
ABSTRACT  

Single-Dose Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Contaminated Abdominal Surgery
Hall et al.
Arch Surg 1989;124:244-247.
ABSTRACT  

Design and Conduct of Antibiotic Trials: A Report of the Scientific Studies Committee of the Surgical Infection Society
Solomkin et al.
Arch Surg 1987;122:158-164.
ABSTRACT  

Stratified Outcome Comparison of Clindamycin-Gentamicin vs Chloramphenicol-Gentamicin for Treatment of Intra-abdominal Sepsis
Lennard et al.
Arch Surg 1985;120:889-898.
ABSTRACT