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

Philip S. Barie, MD
New York, NY

Arch Surg. 1997;132(3):320-321.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

The article by Anderson et al¹ raises several concerns about study methodology and the appropriateness of their study conclusions. The study contains an acknowledged type II statistical error, ie, despite the sample size of 1070 patients, the study is too small to have statistical power. The ostensible statistical difference in a post hoc analysis of a subset of patients (eg, more "minor wound infections" in the ticarcillin plus clavulanic acid group) is therefore meaningless. Further, extrapolation of estimated costs, rather than measurement of actual resource consumption, led to the untenable conclusion that surgical prophylaxis with either ceftriaxone or cefotaxime is more cost-effective than prophylaxis with ticarcillin plus clavulanic acid.

The definitions of "infectious morbidity" that were used are problematic in several respects. The definitions of "wound infection" omitted any consideration of the appearance of the wound. Nosocomial pneumonia is overdiagnosed by conventional sputum collection, and the criteria used actually . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?