SynthesisDer Orthopade2022
[Treatment of bone and periprosthetic infections with bacteriophages : A systematic review].
Synthesis in Der Orthopade, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of antibiotics encapsulated in hyaluronic acid hydrogels on different osteogenic cells and bacteria.Cell and tissue research · 2026Article
- Phage therapy in revision arthroplasty: State of the art and application protocols.Arthroplasty (London, England) · 2026Review
- Is a Bacteriophage Approach for Musculoskeletal Infection Management an Alternative to Conventional Therapy?Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Combating antimicrobial resistance in osteoarticular infections: Current strategies and future directions.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2024Review
- The Medicinal Phage-Regulatory Roadmap for Phage Therapy under EU Pharmaceutical Legislation.Viruses · 2024Article
- Short-Term Outcomes of Phage-Antibiotic Combination Treatment in Adult Patients with Periprosthetic Hip Joint Infection.Viruses · 2023Article
- The State of Research in Fracture-Related Infection-A Bibliometric Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe treatment of bone and prosthesis infections remains difficult despite modern treatment concepts. Further tools for the improvement of treatment outcome are desirable. Preclinical studies provide promising evidence of the efficacy of bacteriophages for the treatment of bone and joint infections.
objectivesThe present work provides a systematic review of the clinical application of bacteriophages for the treatment of bone and joint infections. MATERIALS AND
methodsA systematic search was performed in PubMed to identify primary clinical data on the use of phage therapy in patients with bone and joint infection.
resultsEight case reports and three case series were included in the study. Indications for phage therapy were periprosthetic joint infection (n = 12, 52.2%), fracture-related infection (n = 9, 39.1%), osteomyelitis (n = 1, 4.4%) and sacroiliac joint infection after cement augmentation of a metastasis (n = 1, 4.4%). Interventions were heterogeneous; phages were administered intravenously, injected intraoperatively into the joint, applied locally intraoperatively, or administered via drains. In combination with antibiotic therapy, complete infection eradication was achieved in 18 patients (78.3%). No side effects were reported in 91.3% of patients.
conclusionBacteriophages represent a promising treatment option for bone and prosthesis infections in combination with antibiotic therapy. Future clinical trials with a higher level of evidence are required for the successful translation of bacteriophage therapy into clinical practice.
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.