Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34012968›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in medicine2021

Risk Scores and Machine Learning to Identify Patients With Acute Periprosthetic Joints Infections That Will Likely Fail Classical Irrigation and Debridement.

Marjan Wouthuyzen-Bakker, Noam Shohat, Javad Parvizi, Alex Soriano

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. 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.

Marjan Wouthuyzen-BakkerDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infection Prevention, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
Noam ShohatDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Yitzhak Shamir Medical Center, Zriffin, Israel.
Javad ParviziDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rothman Institute at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
Alex SorianoService of Infectious Diseases, Hospital Clínic, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The most preferred treatment for acute periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is surgical debridement, antibiotics and retention of the implant (DAIR). The reported success of DAIR varies greatly and depends on a complex interplay of several host-related factors, duration of symptoms, the microorganism(s) causing the infection, its susceptibility to antibiotics and many others. Thus, there is a great clinical need to predict failure of the "classical" DAIR procedure so that this surgical option is offered to those most likely to succeed, but also to identify those patients who may benefit from more intensified antibiotic treatment regimens or new and innovative treatment strategies. In this review article, the current recommendations for DAIR will be discussed, a summary of independent risk factors for DAIR failure will be provided and the advantages and limitations of the clinical use of preoperative risk scores in early acute (post-surgical) and late acute (hematogenous) PJIs will be presented. In addition, the potential of implementing machine learning (artificial intelligence) in identifying patients who are at highest risk for failure of DAIR will be addressed. The ultimate goal is to maximally tailor and individualize treatment strategies and to avoid treatment generalization.

Indexed as

debridementfailureimplant retentionmachine learningperiprosthetic joint infectionrisk score

Identifiers

PMID34012968
PMCPMC8126631

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.