Incidence of surgical site infection following caesarean section: A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

BMJ Open

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 2017, Pages

  Saeed, Khalid B M ^a   Greene, Richard A ^a,b   Corcoran, Paul ^a   O'Neill, Sinéad M ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE CORK   (Ireland)

^b Irish Centre for Fetal and Neonatal Translational Research   (Ireland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE; CASE CONTROL STUDY; CESAREAN SECTION; COHORT ANALYSIS; DATA SYNTHESIS; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; INCIDENCE; META ANALYSIS; MORBIDITY; REVIEW; SCREENING TEST; SURGICAL INFECTION; SURGICAL PATIENT; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; ADULT; HEALTH SURVEY; PREGNANCY; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; RISK FACTOR; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

ADULT; CESAREAN SECTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; POPULATION SURVEILLANCE; PREGNANCY; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; RISK FACTORS; SURGICAL WOUND INFECTION;

EID: 85009502205     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20446055     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013037     Document Type: Review

References (32)

1. Betran AP, Merialdi M, Lauer JA, et al. Rates of caesarean section: Analysis of global, regional and national estimates. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2007;21: 98-113.
2. Pfuntner A, Wier LM, Stocks C. Most Frequent Procedures Performed in U.S. Hospitals, 2010. HCUP Statistical Brief #149. 2013.
3. Hospital Episode Statistics Analysis HaSCIC. NHS Maternity Statistics-England, 2014-15. http://www.hscic.gov.uk2015
4. Li Z, Zeki R, Hilder L, et al. 2013. Australia's mothers and babies 2011. Perinatal statistics series no. 28. Cat. no. PER 59. Canberra: AIHW National Perinatal Epidemiology and Statistics Unit, 2011.
5. Gossman GL, Joesch JM, Tanfer K. Trends in maternal request caesarean delivery from 1991 to 2004. Obstet Gynecol 2006;108: 1506-16.
6. National Institutes of Health state-of-The-science conference statement: Cesarean delivery on maternal request March 27-29, 2006. Obstet Gynecol 2006;107: 1386-97.
7. Murthy K, Grobman WA, Lee TA, et al. Association between rising professional liability insurance premiums and primary caesarean delivery rates. Obstet Gynecol 2007;110: 1264-9.
8. Joseph KS, Young DC, Dodds L, et al. Changes in maternal characteristics and obstetric practice and recent increases in primary caesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2003;102: 791-800.
9. Horan TC, Gaynes RP, Martone WJ, et al. CDC definitions of nosocomial surgical site infections, 1992: A modification of CDC definitions of surgical wound infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1992;13: 606-8.
10. Garner JS, Jarvis WR, Emori TG, et al. CDC definitions for nosocomial infections, 1988. Am J Infect Control 1988;16: 128-40.
11. Horan TC, Andrus M, Dudeck MA. CDC/NHSN surveillance definition of healthcare-Associated infection and criteria for specific types of infections in the acute care setting. Am J Infect Control 2008;36: 309-32.
12. Wilson AP, Treasure T, Sturridge MF, et al. A scoring method (ASEPSIS) for postoperative wound infections for use in clinical trials of antibiotic prophylaxis. Lancet 1986;1: 311-13.
13. Bruce J, Russell EM, Mollison J, et al. The measurement and monitoring of surgical adverse events. Health Technol Assess 2001;5: 1-194.
14. Olsen MA, Butler AM, Willers DM, et al. Risk factors for surgical site infection after low transverse caesarean section. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008;29: 477-84; discussion 85-6.
15. Lakhan P, Doherty J, Jones M, et al. A systematic review of maternal intrinsic risk factors associated with surgical site infection following caesarean sections. Healthc Infect 2010;15: 35-41.
16. Beattie PG, Rings TR, Hunter MF, et al. Risk factors for wound infection following caesarean section. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1994;34: 398-402.
17. Noyes N, Berkeley AS, Freedman K, et al. Incidence of postpartum endomyometritis following single-dose antibiotic prophylaxis with either ampicillin/sulbactam, cefazolin, or cefotetan in high-risk caesarean section patients. Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol 1998;6: 220-3.
18. Olsen MA, Butler AM, Willers DM, et al. Risk factors for endometritis after low transverse caesarean delivery. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010;31: 69-77.
19. Assawapalanggool S, Kasatpibal N, Sirichotiyakul S, et al. Risk factors for caesarean surgical site infections at a Thai-Myanmar border hospital. Am J Infect Control 2016;44: 990-5.
20. Farret TCF, Dallé J, da Silva Monteiro V, et al. Risk factors for surgical site infection following caesarean section in a Brazilian Women's Hospital: A case-control study. Braz J Infect Dis 2015;19: 113-17.
21. Gong SP, Guo HX, Zhou HZ, et al. Morbidity and risk factors for surgical site infection following caesarean section in Guangdong Province, China. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2012;38: 509-15.
22. Killian CA, Graffunder EM, Vinciguerra TJ, et al. Risk factors for surgical-site infections following caesarean section. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2001;22: 613-17.
23. Shree R, Park SY, Beigi RH, et al. Surgical site infection following cesarean delivery: Patient, provider, and procedure-specific risk factors. Am J Perinatol 2016;33: 157-64.
24. Lewis SS, Moehring RW, Chen LF, et al. Assessing the relative burden of hospital-Acquired infections in a network of community hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013;34: 1229-30.
25. Wloch C, Wilson J, Lamagni T, et al. Risk factors for surgical site infection following caesarean section in England: Results from a multicentre cohort study. BJOG 2012;119: 1324-33.
26. Jenks PJ, Laurent M, McQuarry S, et al. Clinical and economic burden of surgical site infection (SSI) and predicted financial consequences of elimination of SSI from an English hospital. J Hosp Infect 2014;86: 24-33.
27. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-Analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009;6: E1000097.
28. Duggal N, Poddatorri V, Noroozkhani S, et al. Perioperative oxygen supplementation and surgical site infection after caesarean delivery: A randomized trial. Obstet Gynecol 2013;122: 79-84.
29. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. http://www.cochrane-handbook.org (accessed 8 Jun 2016).
30. Armijo-Olivo S, Stiles CR, Hagen NA, et al. Assessment of study quality for systematic reviews: A comparison of the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool and the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool: Methodological research. J Eval Clin Pract 2012;18: 12-18.
31. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-Analysis. Stat Med 2002;21: 1539-58.
32. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, et al. Bias in meta-Analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315: 629-34.