CHAMGAP
APPROVEDReviewed and approved by the Chamgap Editorial Team (2026-08-14). The draft was written by AI, the existence of all 3 cited sources was verified at the original page, and the verdict passed blind grading and adversarial audit. Methodology v0.7.
Verdict No. 2502 · Search date 2026-08-14 · Methodology v0.7

Preoperative oral antibiotics,
does it really help with Reduced 30-day surgical-site infection versus intravenous prophylaxis alone?

30-Second Summary
B
Evidence Grade B · 76 · Safety caution
Adding preoperative oral antibiotics reduced 30-day surgical-site infection in two independent trials
Oral antibiotics can cause nausea, diarrhea, allergy, C. difficile infection, and selection for resistance. The surgical team should review local resistance, contraindications, and interacting drugs.
What the
research shows
The grade is B. Infection was 4.9% versus 11.2% in the Spanish ORALEV trial and 13.0% versus 21.6% in the French COMBINE trial. Randomized trials with separate nonprofit and public funding replicated reduction of the same 30-day clinical event. Both analyses excluded some randomized participants, giving B with 76 points.
What the
ads claim
Adding preoperative oral antibiotics to intravenous prophylaxis reduced infection. Regimen, bowel preparation, operative site, and local resistance must guide prescribing; this is not evidence for self-medication.
*

Useful facts when choosing a product

  • ORALEV used ciprofloxacin plus metronidazole without mechanical bowel preparation.
  • COMBINE used ornidazole 1 g about 12 hours before surgery against placebo.
  • Both were specialist perioperative protocols, not self-treatment.
Gap Measurement · Verdict 2502 · B 76
What advertising claims
What independent, higher-quality research supports
△ GAP
01

What the research actually shows

ORALEV randomized 565 people but analyzed 267 and 269 who received assigned treatment. COMBINE randomized 960 and used a complete-case modified intention-to-treat analysis of 463 per arm after withdrawals. Both prespecified 30-day surgical-site infection as primary. Authors and Spanish nonprofit versus French public funding were separate, while post-randomization exclusion remained an avoidable analytical limitation in both.

02

Why this is classified as B (76)

Two independently funded randomized trials replicated lower 30-day infection, but both used modified analyses after post-randomization exclusions, giving B with 76 points.

Counterpoint. Resistance, C. difficile infection, allergy, and local drug choice remain separate prescribing considerations.

Rejudgment record. New verdict — Same 30-day surgical-site infection reduction in two independently funded randomized trials with modified analyses

Scoring profile behind this grade
EndpointHHard endpoint - actual events such as death
ReplicationR2Independently replicated across trials
IndependenceI2Decisive evidence is publicly or non-profit funded
Effect sizeE+Meets the clinically important threshold

The scoring table and the verdict agree (B).

Sub-claim grades by effect

This ingredient is marketed for several effects. A single overall grade blends strong and weak claims together, so each effect is graded separately here. The overall grade reflects the strongest disconfirming or core claim.

Effect (sub-claim)GradeBasis
Reduced overall 30-day surgical-site infectionBTwo independent trials found reductions in the same direction.
Reduced infection without mechanical bowel preparationBORALEV found 4.9% versus 11.2%.
All oral antibiotic regimens are equivalent?These were not head-to-head regimen comparisons.

Cross-check — Codex and Claude

This verdict was drafted by Codex through literature review and source-existence checks, cross-checked through blind grading and adversarial audit, and settled by reapplying the methodology boundary rules. Cases with split grades were resolved through rejudgment.
03

Evidence Table

StudyDesignSampleFundingEndpointResultWeight
Study 1Multicenter single-blind pragmatic randomized trial269Partly funded by Fundación Asociación Española de ColoproctologíaPrimary: surgical-site infection within 30 days13/267 (4.9%) versus 30/269 (11.2%), OR 0.41 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.80)Independent nonprofit-funded replication trial
Study 2Multicenter double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trial926French Ministry of Health PHRC-14-0060 and Clermont-Ferrand University HospitalPrimary: surgical-site infection within 30 days60/463 (13.0%) versus 100/463 (21.6%), absolute difference -8.6 points (95% CI -13.5 to -3.8), RR 0.60 (0.45 to 0.80)Independent publicly funded replication trial
§

Receipt — 3 References

All 3 cited sources were verified for existence at the original page (as of 2026-08-14).

Espin Basany E, Solis-Pena A, Pellino G, et al. Preoperative oral antibiotics and surgical-site infections in colon surgery (ORALEV): a multicentre, single-blind, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;5(8):729-738. PMID: 32325012. DOI: 10.1016/S2468-1253(20)30075-3. NCT02505581; EudraCT 2014-002345-21.
checked
Futier E, Jaber S, Garot M, et al. Effect of oral antimicrobial prophylaxis on surgical site infection after elective colorectal surgery: multicentre, randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial. BMJ. 2022;379:e071476. PMID: 36328372. PMCID: PMC9631300. DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2022-071476. NCT02618720.
checked
ClinicalTrials.gov. COMBINE. NCT02618720.
checked
Draft and rewrite: Codex (AI) · Verification: Codex blind grading and adversarial audit · Final adjudication: Claude
Reviewed and approved: Chamgap Editorial Team · Approval date: 2026-08-14 · Corrections: none

Cite this verdict

Preoperative oral antibiotics x surgical-site infection after colorectal surgery Evidence Grade B card
[Chamgap] Preoperative oral antibiotics x surgical-site infection after colorectal surgery — Evidence Grade B·76. 3 cited sources checked. Source: https://chamgap.com/en/verdicts/gut/preoperative-oral-antibiotics-colorectal-surgery-ssi/ · CC BY 4.0

CC BY 4.0 — free to use with attribution; do not distort grades, numbers, or verdict meaning.

!

What this document does and does not do

Chamgap is an information source. It reports what research has and has not confirmed; it does not tell readers what to take or buy. That decision belongs to readers and, when needed, medical or legal professionals. This verdict reflects literature available up to the search date and may change as new research appears. Nothing here is medical advice.