Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28224190›Full record

SynthesisInternational orthopaedics2017

What is a "periprosthetic shoulder infection"? A systematic review of two decades of publications.

Jason E Hsu, Jeremy S Somerson, Kiet V Vo, Frederick A Matsen

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International orthopaedics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Prosthetic Shoulder Joint Infection byAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jason E HsuDepartment of Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, University of Washington Medical Center, 1959 NE Pacific St, Box 356500, Seattle, WA, 98195-6500, USA.
Jeremy S SomersonUniversity of Texas Medical Branch, 301 University Blvd, Galveston, TX, 77555, USA.
Kiet V VoSchool of Medicine, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific St, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
Frederick A MatsenDepartment of Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, University of Washington Medical Center, 1959 NE Pacific St, Box 356500, Seattle, WA, 98195-6500, USA. matsen@uw.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWhile as many as 50% of revision shoulder arthroplasties are culture positive, a consistent, clinically useful definition of a "periprosthetic shoulder infection" is lacking. We conducted a systematic review of the published literature with respect to (1) the definition of a "periprosthetic shoulder infection", (2) the pre-operative evaluation for possible infection, and (3) the harvesting and culturing of specimens at the time of surgical revision.

methodsUsing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we identified 20 studies concerning infection at the time of revision shoulder arthroplasty. The review was registered in the international Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews.

resultsAn explicit definition of infection was not present in six studies (27%). Classification systems used for periprosthetic hip and knee infections were used in three studies (14%). Clinical signs and symptoms were used in all definitions, but most studies did not report microbiologic results or culturing practices.

conclusionsSynthesis of the literature on failed arthroplasties with positive cultures is compromised by lack of standardization, leaving surgeons without secure evidence on which to base diagnostic and treatment decisions. These decisions would be better informed if authors used a consistent approach in the evaluation of failed arthroplasties with respect to the number and source of specimens submitted, the culture technique, the number of specimens that became culture positive, the bacteria identified, and the bacterial load recovered from the shoulder. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: This was a systematic review of reports of all levels.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, ShoulderHumansMicrobiological TechniquesProsthesis-Related InfectionsReoperationShoulder JointSpecimen HandlingBacterial culturing protocolsDefinitionPropionibacteriumShoulder periprosthetic infectionSystematic review

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.