ArticleCureus2020
An Updated Evidence About the Role of Timing to Debridement on Infection Rate of Open Tibial Fractures: A Meta-Analysis.
Article in Cureus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objectives Recent experimental and clinical evidence supporting early debridement for open fractures has been questioned. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize and evaluate the current evidence regarding the timing of surgical debridement of open tibial fractures. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted on studies compared the infection rate following early versus late debridement of open tibial fractures. We performed an online, bibliographic, search through the period from January 2000 to June 2020 in five bibliographic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline via PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and EBSCO host. Results Nine retrospective studies and six prospective studies were included in the present meta-analysis study. The pooled effect estimate showed no statistically significant difference between early and late debridement regarding the overall infection rate (RD 0.02, 95% CI [0 - 0.04], p = 0.94); there was no significant heterogeneity in the pooled estimate (I2 = 5%). The subgroup analysis showed that the non-significant difference was consistent regardless of the definition of early and late timing to debridement. Likewise, the pooled effect estimate showed no statistically significant difference between early and late debridement regarding the deep infection rate (RD 0.01, 95% CI [-0.01 - 0.03], p = 0.92); there was no significant heterogeneity in the pooled estimate (I2 = 0%). The pooled effect estimate showed no statistically significant difference between early and late debridement regarding the nonunion rate as well. The funnel lots showed little evidence of asymmetry by visual inspection. Conclusion In conclusion, the current evidence demonstrates no impact of timing to surgical debridement on the infection rate following open tibial fractures in the adult population. Our results demonstrated that the risks of infection, deep infection, and nonunion were similar between patients who underwent delayed versus early debridement.
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.