Has network meta‐analysis resolved the controversies related to bowel preparation in elective colorectal surgery?

AIM: There are discrepancies in the guidelines on preparation for colorectal surgery. While intravenous antibiotics (IV) are usually administered, the use of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) and/or oral antibiotics (OA) is controversial. A recent network meta‐analysis (NMA) demonstrated that the addition of OA reduced incisional surgical site infections (iSSIs) by more than 50%. We aimed to perform a NMA including only the highest quality randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in order to determine the ranking of different treatment strategies and assess these RCTs for methodological problems that may affect the conclusions of the NMAs. METHOD: A NMA was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. RCTs of adult patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery with appropriate antibiotic cover and with at least 250 participants recruited, clear definition of endpoints and duration of follow‐up extending beyond discharge from hospital were included. The search included Medline, Embase, Cochrane and SCOPUS databases. Primary outcomes were iSSI and anastomotic leak (AL). Statistical analysis was performed in Stata v.15.1 using frequentist routines. RESULTS: Ten RCTs including 5107 patients were identified. Treatments compared IV (2218 patients), IV + OA (460 patients), MBP + IV (1405 patients), MBP + IV + OA (538 patients) and OA (486 patients). The likelihood of iSSI was significantly lower for IV + OA (rank 1) and MBP + IVA + OA (rank 2), reducing iSSIs by more than 50%. There were no differences between treatments for AL. Methodological issues included differences in definition, assessment and frequency of primary endpoint infections and the limited number of participants included in some treatment options. CONCLUSION: While this NMA supports the addition of OA to IV to reduce iSSI it also highlights unanswered questions and the need for well‐designed pragmatic RCTs.