ReviewDer Orthopade2015
[Microbiological diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infections].
Review in Der Orthopade, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProsthetic joint infection is a rare but serious complication after arthroplasty, leading to prolonged hospitalization and repeated surgical intervention. THEME: In this article, successful strategies for the rapid and accurate microbiological diagnosis of infection are reviewed. In the case of clinical suspicion of a prosthetic joint infection, at least a comprehensive clinical review of the patient's postoperative history, a physical examination, routine blood tests including white cell count, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and C-reactive protein, and further investigation of the synovial-fluid leukocyte count and microbial culture are needed. Depending of the clinical signs of infection additional blood culture samples should be taken.
resultsThe gold standard to confirm infection is a surgical procedure with at least 5-6 biopsies from suspected areas for both microbial culture and histopathological examination. Culture results may be negative because of previous antimicrobial therapy, a low number of culturable organisms in biofilm formations, inappropriate culture medium, and prolonged transport time.
conclusionIn any of these conditions, diagnosis with highly sensitive diagnostic techniques such as polymerase chain reaction should be considered for the identification of the causative agent in order to establish the most appropriate antimicrobial treatment options.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.