↓ Skip to main content

Prevention of Surgical Site Infections: A Systematic Review of Cost Analyses in the Use of Prophylactic Antibiotics

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pharmacology, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
168 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Prevention of Surgical Site Infections: A Systematic Review of Cost Analyses in the Use of Prophylactic Antibiotics
Published in
Frontiers in Pharmacology, July 2018
DOI 10.3389/fphar.2018.00776
Pubmed ID
Authors

Abdul K. R. Purba, Didik Setiawan, Erik Bathoorn, Maarten J. Postma, Jan-Willem H. Dik, Alex W. Friedrich

Abstract

Introduction: The preoperative phase is an important period in which to prevent surgical site infections (SSIs). Prophylactic antibiotic use helps to reduce SSI rates, leading to reductions in hospitalization time and cost. In clinical practice, besides effectiveness and safety, the selection of prophylactic antibiotic agents should also consider the evidence with regard to costs and microbiological results. This review assessed the current research related to the use of antibiotics for SSI prophylaxis from an economic perspective and the underlying epidemiology of microbiological findings. Methods: A literature search was carried out through PubMed and Embase databases from 1 January 2006 to 31 August 2017. The relevant studies which reported the use of prophylactic antibiotics, SSI rates, and costs were included for analysis. The causing pathogens for SSIs were categorized by sites of the surgery. The quality of reporting on each included study was assessed with the "Consensus on Health Economic Criteria" (CHEC). Results: We identified 20 eligible full-text studies that met our inclusion criteria, which were subsequently assessed, studies had in a reporting quality scored on the CHEC list averaging 13.03 (8-18.5). Of the included studies, 14 were trial-based studies, and the others were model-based studies. The SSI rates ranged from 0 to 71.1% with costs amounting to US$480-22,130. Twenty-four bacteria were identified as causative agents of SSIs. Gram negatives were the dominant causes of SSIs especially in general surgery, neurosurgery, cardiothoracic surgery, and obstetric cesarean sections. Conclusions: Varying results were reported in the studies reviewed. Yet, information from both trial-based and model-based costing studies could be considered in the clinical implementation of proper and efficient use of prophylactic antibiotics to prevent SSIs and antimicrobial resistance.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 168 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 168 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 12%
Student > Bachelor 20 12%
Researcher 15 9%
Student > Postgraduate 12 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 7%
Other 31 18%
Unknown 58 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Other 24 14%
Unknown 63 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 June 2021.
All research outputs
#7,326,424
of 23,098,660 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#3,133
of 16,458 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,011
of 329,176 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#77
of 407 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,098,660 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,458 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,176 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 407 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.