ArticleJournal of children's orthopaedics2018
Article in Journal of children's orthopaedics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Can sterility of stripped iodophor-impregnated plastic adhesive drape be maintained at the time of incision closure in total hip arthroplasty?Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica · 2020Article
- Is Cutibacterium acnes early surgical site infection rate related to the duration of antibiotic prophylaxis in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis surgery?European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2020Article
- ProbioticFrontiers in microbiology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSurgical site infection (SSI) caused by
methodsA case-control study was performed. Each case was matched 2:1 for age, gender and diagnosis. Retrospective chart review was performed to obtain relevant demographic, surgical and clinical data for all cases and controls. Statistical analysis included paired
resultsThis study included ten infection cases (eight AIS, two JIS) and 20 controls (16 AIS, four JIS). In total, six infected cases presented within two weeks of the index procedure (acute infection) and four infected cases presented more than one year from the index procedure (delayed infection). The most common presentation for acute infections was wound drainage, while back pain was more common in delayed infections. All infections were successfully treated with surgical irrigation and debridement and postoperative antibiotics. Hardware was removed for patients with delayed infections. The strongest risk factor for infection was increased requirement for blood transfusion, but it did not reach statistical significance.
conclusionSSI with LEVEL OF EVIDENCE LEVEL III:
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.