The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is unlike anything seen before by modern science-based medicine. Health systems across the world are struggling to manage it. Added to this struggle are the effects of social confinement and isolation. This brings into question whether the latest guidelines are relevant in this crisis. We aim to support urologists in this difficult situation by providing tools that can facilitate decision making, and to minimise the impact and risks for both patients and health professionals delivering urological care, whenever possible. We hope that the revised recommendations will assist urologist surgeons across the globe to guide the management of urological conditions during the current COVID-19 pandemic.
Purpose: We identify which nonantibiotic strategies could reduce the risk of infectious complications following prostate biopsy. Materials and Methods: We performed a literature search on MEDLINEÒ, EmbaseÒ and the Cochrane Database for randomized controlled trials (inception to May 2020) assessing nonantibiotic interventions in prostate biopsy. Primary outcome was pooled infectious complications (fever, sepsis and symptomatic urinary tract infection) and secondary outcome was hospitalization. Cochrane risk of bias tool and GRADE approach were used to assess the bias and the certainty of evidence. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42015026354). Results: A total of 90 randomized controlled trials (16,941 participants) were included in the analysis, with 83 trials being categorized into one of 10 different interventions. Transperineal biopsy was associated with significantly reduced infectious complications as compared to transrectal biopsy (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.33e0.92, p[0.02, I 2 [0%, 1,330 participants, 7 studies). Rectal preparation with povidone-iodine was also shown to reduce infectious complications (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.38e0.65, p <0.000001, I 2 [27%, 1,686 participants, 8 studies) as well as hospitalization (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.21e0.69, p[0.002, I 2 [0%, 620 participants, 4 studies). We found no difference in infectious complications/hospitalization for 6 other interventions, ie number of biopsy cores, periprostatic nerve block, number of injections for periprostatic nerve block, needle guide type, needle type and rectal preparation with enema. In 2 interventions (needle diameter, rectal preparation with chlorhexidine) meta-analysis was not possible. Finally, 7 studies had unique interventions. The certainty of evidence was rated as low/ very low for all interventions. Conclusions: Transperineal biopsy significantly reduces infectious complications compared to transrectal biopsy and should therefore be preferred. If transrectal biopsy is performed, rectal preparation with povidone-iodine is highly recommended. The other investigated nonantibiotic strategies did not significantly influence infection and hospitalization after prostate biopsy.
Purpose: Infectious complications following prostate biopsy are increasing and fluoroquinolone prophylaxis has recently been banned by the European Commission. In this systematic review we summarize the evidence for different antibiotic prophylaxis regimens. Materials and Methods: We searched MEDLINEÒ, EmbaseÒ and Cochrane Database for randomized controlled trials (inception to October 2019) assessing antimicrobial interventions in prostate biopsy. Primary outcome was infectious complications. Exclusion criteria were simultaneous interfering interventions. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations) was used to assess the certainty of evidence. Protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42015026354). Results: Overall 59 randomized controlled trials (14,153 participants) and 7 different antimicrobial interventions were included. Antibiotic prophylaxis reduced infectious complications compared to no prophylaxis (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.40e0.77, p[0.0005, I 2 [15%, participants 1,753, studies 11). A short-term prophylaxis (single shot to 3 days) was inferior to a long-term prophylaxis (1 to 7 days) with fluoroquinolone (RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.37e2.61, p[0.0001, I 2 [0%, participants 3,999, studies 17). Fosfomycin trometamol was an alternative to fluoroquinolone with reduced rates of infectious complications (RR 0.49, 95 CI 0.27e0.87, p[0.02, I 2 [54%, participants 1,239, studies 3). Empiric prophylaxis was inferior to targeted prophylaxis (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.28e2.55, p[0.0008, I 2 [48%, participants 1,511, studies 6). Standard prophylaxis was inferior to augmented prophylaxis (using multiple rather than single agent) using a fixed model (RR 2.10, 95% CI 1.53e2.88, p <0.0001, I 2 [71%, participants 2,597, studies 9), but not using a random model (p[0.07). No difference was observed in infectious complications based on route or timing of antimicrobial prophylaxis. The certainty of evidence was rated as low/very low. Conclusions: In countries where fluoroquinolones are allowed as antibiotic prophylaxis, a minimum of a full 1-day administration as well as targeted therapy in case of fluoroquinolone resistance is recommended. In countries Abbreviations and Acronyms MA [ meta-analysis RCT [ randomized controlled trial RoB [ risk of bias SR [ systematic review UTI [ urinary tract infection
Viability and metabolic assays are commonly used as proxies to assess the overall metabolism of microorganisms. The variety of these assays combined with little information provided by some assay kits or online protocols often leads to mistakes or poor interpretation of the results. In addition, the use of some of these assays is restricted to simple systems (mostly pure cultures), and care must be taken in their application to environmental samples. In this review, the necessary data are compiled to understand the reactions or measurements performed in many of the assays commonly used in various aspects of microbiology. Also, their relationships to each other, as metabolism links many of these assays, resulting in correlations between measured values and parameters, are discussed. Finally, the limitations of these assays are discussed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.