ArticleAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Pre-Referral Microbiology in Long Bone Infection: What Can It Tell Us?
Article in Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: It remains unclear how accurately patients’ previous microbiology correlates with that ascertained from deep sampling in long bone infection. This study assessed the quality of microbiology referral information and compared it to the gold standard of intra-operative deep tissue sampling. Methods: All patients referred to a single specialist centre within the UK between January 2019 and March 2020 who received surgery for long bone infection were eligible for inclusion. Data on microbiological testing that was performed prior to referral was collected prospectively at the time of clinic appointment and prior to surgery. Pre-referral microbiology was compared to microbiology from deep tissue samples taken during surgery. Results: 141 patients met the diagnostic criteria for long bone infection and were included for analysis. Of these, 72 patients had microbiological information available at referral from 88 samples, obtained from either sinus swab (n = 40), previous surgical sampling (n = 25), biopsy (n = 19) or blood cultures (n = 4). In 65.9% of samples, pre-referral microbiology was deemed to be a non-match when compared to intra-operative samples. Factors that increased risk of a non-match included presence of a sinus (odd’s ratio (OR) 11.3 [95% CI 2.84−56.6], p = 0.001), increased duration of time from sampling (OR 2.29, [95% CI 1.23−5.90], p = 0.030) and results from prior surgical sampling (OR 23.0 [95% CI 2.80−525.6], p = 0.011). Furthermore, previous surgical debridement gave an increased risk of multi-, extensively or pan-resistant isolates cultured from intra-operative sampling (OR 3.6 [95% CI 1.5−8.7], p < 0.01). Conclusions: We have demonstrated that presence of a sinus, a long time from the sample being taken and results from prior surgical sampling are more likely to give inaccurate representation of current microbiology. Importantly, in cases with previous debridement surgery, there was an increased risk of multi drug resistant isolates which should be planned for in future treatments.
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.