Skip to main content
. 2014 Nov 17;2014(11):CD008726. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008726.pub2

Busowski 2000.

Methods RCT. Individual women. 3‐arm study.
Participants Inclusion criteria
  • Women undergoing CS following labour for > 2 hours without evidence of infection.

  • N = 114.


Exclusion criteria
  • Inability to understand or give consent; oral temperature > 1000F; antibiotic treatment within 72 hours prior to birth; allergies to study antibiotics; intention to breastfeed.

  • Requirement of additional antibiotics during or after CS ‐ this may contribute to high risk of bias through exclusion after randomisation.

Interventions Intervention: cephalosporin (B2).
  • Cefotetan.

  • 1 g, single dose, IV.

  • N = 42.


Comparison 1: penicillin (A4) combination
  • Ampicillin +sulbactam.

  • 1.5 g.

  • N = 33.


Comparison 2
  • Ciprofloxacin ‐ fluoroquinolone ‐ 2nd generation (C2).

  • N = 39.

Outcomes Endometritis; pneumonia; bacteraemia; UTI; would infection; postpartum stay > 6 days.
Notes Setting: Tampa General Hospital, US.
Subgroups
  1. Non‐elective CS.

  2. After cord clamping.

  3. IV administration.

  4. Single dose.

  • Comparisons: 1(subgroup 2); 2; 3; 4; 11; 12.

  • No information about funding source of study.

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk “... prospectively randomised...”
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk “... prospectively randomised...”
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk · “Investigators were blinded to treatment.”
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk · “Investigators were blinded to treatment.”
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk No loss to follow‐up.
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk We did not asses trial protocol.
Other bias Unclear risk Baseline characteristics similar for: primaparous; weight; gestation; race; repeat CS; Hb but there was a statistically significant difference in age considered not to be clinically important. Other aspects of bias were unclear. No information about funding source of study.