Abstract
Objective: to determine incidence of adverse effects related to antibiotic prophylaxis compared to other interventions in patients who undergo cystoscopy with sterile urine. Methods: Search strategy (January 1980-January 2014) in Medline via PubMed, CENTRAL, and EMBASE. Additionally, we searched databases for registered trials and conference abstracts, as well as reference lists of systematic reviews and included studies. Two published randomized placebo-controlled trials (January 1, 1980 and January 31, 2014) were included in qualitative analysis with no language restrictions. Two independent reviewers collected Data. Risk of bias was evaluated with the Cochrane Collaboration recommendations. The primary outcome was incidence of adverse effects (AE). Results: 2448 patients were found in the studies of Garcia-Perdomo et al., and Jimenez-Cruz et al. The incidence of AE in one study was 0.7% in intervention group (nausea), no AE in control group or in the other study included. A meta-analysis was not performed. Conclusions: There is a low incidence of adverse effects associated with antibiotic prophylaxis in cystoscopy besides we found inadequate conducting and report of this outcome in studies included.
Highlights
In Urology, there are multiple indications to perform a cystoscopy, like hematuria, cancer, planning a surgery, and many others [1]
According to García-Perdomo et al (Meta-analysis submitted for publication), post cystoscopy urinary tract infection (UTI) is not prevented by using antibiotic prophylaxis according to low risk of bias studies, adverse effects were not assessed
The study of García-Perdomo et al, described the possible adverse effects but only one event was shown in the intervention group and no events were seen in control group
Summary
In Urology, there are multiple indications to perform a cystoscopy, like hematuria, cancer, planning a surgery, and many others [1]. This has many advantages as a diagnostic procedure, it has adverse effects like urinary tract infection (UTI) which has been studied frequently in ambulatory and hospital settings, recognizing as the most common nosocomial infection nowadays [2] and it has been associated with higher morbidity for patients [3,4,5]. Multiple studies suggest that there are not differences between selecting randomized or not randomized studies to obtain the best information about adverse effects (AE) [7] others suggest that quasi-experimental and analytical studies must be selected due to they have more chance to describe adverse effects not evidenced in randomized studies [8]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
