Search

Background: Surgical site infections continue to be a significant challenge following colorectal surgery. These can result in extended hospital stays, hospital readmissions, increased treatment costs, and negative effects on patients' quality of life. Antibiotic prophylaxis plays a crucial role in preventing infection during surgery, specifically in preventing surgical site infections after colorectal surgery in adult patients. However, the optimal antibiotic regimen is still unclear based on current evidence. Considering the limitations of existing reviews, our goal is to conduct a comprehensive systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to evaluate the comparative benefits and harms of available antibiotic prophylaxis regimens for preventing surgical site infections following colorectal surgery in adult patients., Methods: We will search the Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases to identify relevant randomized controlled trials. We will include trials that (1) enrolled adults who underwent colorectal surgeries and (2) randomized them to any systemic administration of antibiotic (single or combined) prophylaxis before surgery compared to an alternative systemic antibiotic (single or combined antibiotic), placebo, control, or no prophylactic treatment. Pairs of reviewers will independently assess the risk of bias among eligible trials using a modified Cochrane risk of bias instrument for randomized trials. Our outcomes of interest include the rate of surgical site infection within 30 days of surgery, hospital length of stay, 30-day mortality, and treatment-related adverse effects. We will perform a contrast-based network meta-analysis using a frequentist random-effects model assuming a common heterogeneity parameter. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach will be utilized to assess the certainty of evidence for treatment effects., Discussion: By synthesizing evidence from available RCTs, this study will provide valuable insight for clinicians, patients, and health policymakers on the most effective antibiotics for preventing surgical site infection., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42023434544., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Guidelines and quality indicators (for example as part of a quality assurance scheme) aim to improve health care delivery and health outcomes. Ideally, the development of quality indicators should be grounded in evidence-based, trustworthy guideline recommendations. However, anecdotally, guidelines and quality assurance schemes are developed independently, by different groups of experts who employ different methodologies. We conducted an extension and update of a previous systematic review to identify, describe and evaluate approaches to the integrated development of guidelines and related quality indicators., Methods: On May 24th, 2019 we searched in Medline, Embase and CINAHL and included studies if they reported a methodological approach to guideline-based quality indicator development and were published in English, French, or German., Results: Out of 16,034 identified records, we included 17 articles that described a method to integrate guideline recommendations development and quality indicator development. Added to the 13 method articles from original systematic review we included a total 30 method articles. We did not find any evaluation studies. In most approaches, guidelines were a source of evidence to inform the quality indicator development. The criteria to select recommendations (e.g. level of evidence or strength of the recommendation) and to generate, select and assess quality indicators varied widely. We found methodological approaches that linked guidelines and quality indicator development explicitly, however none of the articles reported a conceptual framework that fully integrated quality indicator development into the guideline process or where quality indicator development was part of the question formulation for developing the guideline recommendations., Conclusions: In our systematic review we found approaches which explicitly linked guidelines with quality indicator development, nevertheless none of the articles reported a comprehensive and well-defined conceptual framework which integrated quality indicator development fully into the guideline development process.