Table 2 GRADE Summary of findings.

From: Infectious complications following transperineal prostate biopsy with or without periprocedural antibiotic prophylaxis—a systematic review including meta-analysis of all comparative studies

Endpoint

Studies and participants

Relative effect OR (95%-CI)

Anticipated absolute effect (95%-CI)

Difference (95%-CI)

Certaintya

What happens (standardized GRADE terminology)

CG (with PAP)

IG (without PAP)

GUI

1 RCT (n = 553)

14 NRS (n = 8155)

0.330 (0.034–3.189)

1.533 (0.807–2.914)

0.361 (–0.346–1.068)

0.646 (0.399–0.893)

1.087 (–0.139–2.313)

0.412 (0.216–0.606)

0.726 (-0.683–2.135)

–0.234 (–0.572–0.103)

Low

There is no evidence that omitting PAP in the context of TPB is associated with a higher rate of GUI.

Fever

3 NRS (n = 1154)

0.866 (0.282–2.659)

1.329 (0.420–2.238)

1.087 (0.225–1.949)

–0.242 (–1.497–1.013)

Very low

There is no evidence that omitting PAP in the context of TPB is associated with a higher rate of fever.

Sepsis

7 NRS (n = 3376)

1.303 (0.463–3.670)

0.362 (0.095–0.629)

0.416 (0.084–0.749)

0.054 (–0.377–0.486)

Very low

There is no evidence that omitting PAP in the context of TPB is associated with a higher rate of sepsis.

Readmission

1 RCT (n = 553)

11 NRS (n = 7270)

0.330 (0.034–3.189)

1.726 (0.794–3.751)

0.361 (–0.346–1.068)

0.447 (0.235–0.659)

1.087 (–0.139–2.313)

0.317 (0.130–0.504)

0.726 (–0.683–2.135)

–0.130 (–0.414–0.155)

Low

There is no evidence that omitting PAP in the context of TPB is associated with a higher rate of readmission.

  1. CG comparison group, CI confidence interval, GUI genitourinary tract infections, GRADE grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation, IG intervention group, NRS non-randomized studies, OR odds ratio, PAP periprocedural antibiotic prophylaxis, RCT randomized controlled trials, TPB trans-perineal biopsy.
  2. Note: For GRADE, only those studies were considered that were included in the meta-analyses and had events in the endpoints.
  3. aGRADE category of evidence (an evaluation was conducted here that considered the results of both RCT and NRS):
  4. High certainty (we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect).
  5. Moderate certainty (we are moderately confident in the effect estimate; the true effect is probably close to the estimate, but it is possibly substantially different).
  6. Low certainty (our confidence in the effect estimate is limited; the true effect could be substantially different from the estimate of the effect).
  7. Very low certainty (we have very little confidence in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect).
Back to article page