Original manuscript by Yu et al.: Antibiotic prophylaxis in perioperative period of percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a syst
- PDF / 309,823 Bytes
- 1 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 7 Downloads / 200 Views
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Original manuscript by Yu et al.: Antibiotic prophylaxis in perioperative period of percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta‑analysis of comparative studies Tuo Deng1 · Guohua Zeng1 Received: 1 October 2019 / Accepted: 4 October 2019 © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019
Dear Editor, With much interest, we read the meta‑analysis by Yu et al. [1]. The authors performed a comprehensive review and pooled analysis to assess the effectiveness of different anti‑ biotic prophylaxis strategies on preventing postoperative infection complications. Postoperative urinary tract infection leads to great pain and economic burden on patients, thus figuring out an appropriate strategy of antibiotic prophylaxis in percutaneous nephrolithotomy is necessary and important in clinical practice. In this aspect, Yu et al. did a good work. However, some methodology issues in their study should be addressed. At first, the misuse of effect model in the meta-analysis should be pointed out. In the pooled analysis, the selec‑ tion of effect model depends on the results of heterogene‑ ity test, which is conducted through Chi square test based Q- and I2-statistic [2]. If no heterogeneity existed with a P value > 0.10, the fixed-effect model should be used. Oth‑ erwise, the random-effect model should be applied. In the Methods section of Yu et al.’s study, the use of effect model is described correctly. However, in the Results section, the use of effect model is confused. For example, in Figs. 5A and 6, the results of heterogeneity tests show all P values are greater than 0.1 and I2
Data Loading...
