Table 3 Presentation of the pooled incidence rates of infectious complications following transperineal prostate biopsy in groups with versus without periprocedural antibiotic prophylaxis (PAP) derived from all systematic reviews currently available.

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

Criteria

Basourakos [9]

Castellani [10]

Our own systematic review

Methodology of the systematic review

Indirect comparison of study results

Direct comparison of study results

Direct comparison of study results

Completion date of the literature search

29-Dec-2020

02-Jun-2021

01-Jan-2024

Number of included studies

106

8

23

Number of included studies with a prospective-randomized designa

Not applicable

0

2

Number of patients with PAP

37,805

2368

6520

Number of patients without PAP

4772

1294

5804

Genitourinary tract infections (with vs. without PAP)

1.35% (403/29,880) vs.

1.22% (58/4772), p = 0.494b

0.13% (3/2368) vs.

0.31% (4/1294), p = 0.252b

0.37% (20/5417) vs.

0.50% (27/5385), p = 0.297

Fever (with vs. without PAP)

Not reported

0.69% (5/725) vs.

0.47% (4/846), p = 0.740b

0.26% (9/3496) vs.

0.44% (10/2251), p = 0.228

Sepsis (with vs. without PAP)

0.05% (19/37,805) vs.

0.08% (4/4772), p = 0.318b

0.13% (3/2368) vs.

0.08% (1/1294), p = 0.999b

0.13% (6/4655) vs.

0.16% (7/4249), p = 0.658

Readmission rate (with vs. without PAP)

Not reported

0.13% (3/2368) vs.

0.23% (3/1294), p = 0.433b

0.29% (14/4772) vs.

0.35% (18/5160), p = 0.626

30-day mortality (with vs. without PAP)

Not reported

Each 0%

Each 0%

  1. PAP periprocedural antibiotic prophylaxis.
  2. aRandomized studies regarding the trial question ‘with versus without PAP’.
  3. bThe p-values were independently calculated using Fisher’s exact test (Chi-square) as they were not reported in the original study.