THE EVALUATION OF FIFTY CLINICAL TRIALS PUBLISHED IN TURKISH LITERATURE ON ANTIBIOTIC PROPHYLAXIS OF SURGICAL WOUND INFECTION

Abstract

Fifty papers published between 1987 and 1990 in Turkish literature that tested regimens of antibiotic prophylaxis of surgical wound infection were studied. Of the 50 papers 19 were reports of random control clinical trials. They were evaluated using Evans and Pollock's scoring system devised for assessing publications of random control clinical trials. A maximum score of 100 was allotted: 50 for 15 aspects of design, 30 for 10 aspects of analysis snd 20 for 8 aspects of presentation. The 19 papers scored from 19 to 52 (mean, 38). Only 2(10.4%) reached a score of more than 50. The vast majority of reports had defects in almost all aspects of study design and analysis. Defects in presentation were less frequently encountered. The most common error in the prophylactic use of antibiotic was the prolonged administration of drug in the postoperative period. The published conclusions of many clinical trials are ill-founded, and may be wrong. Such errors can be recognized and minimized if the investigator takes into account the certain guidelines and recommendations for the evaluation of antibiotic prophylaxis of surgical wound infection. Studies in this area performed with rational guidelines will definitely be an addition to the surgical literature and guide researchers planning such studies.