Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36984267›Full record

ReviewMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Local Antibiotic Delivery Ceramic Bone Substitutes for the Treatment of Infected Bone Cavities and Bone Regeneration: A Systematic Review on What We Have Learned from Animal Models.

Nuno Alegrete, Susana R Sousa, Bárbara Peleteiro, Fernando J Monteiro, Manuel Gutierres

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Nuno Alegretei3S-Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde, Universidade do Porto, R. Alfredo Allen 208, 4200-135 Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-2382-1106
Susana R Sousai3S-Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde, Universidade do Porto, R. Alfredo Allen 208, 4200-135 Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0001-8018-4310
Bárbara PeleteiroEPIUnit-Instituto de Saúde Pública, Universidade do Porto, Rua das Taipas 135, 4050-600 Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-0579-9988
Fernando J Monteiroi3S-Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde, Universidade do Porto, R. Alfredo Allen 208, 4200-135 Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-1361-4605
Manuel GutierresFMUP-Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade do Porto, Alameda Prof. Hernâni Monteiro, 4200-319 Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-0491-1736
Universidade do Porto · PTInstitute of Mechanical Engineering and Industrial Mangement · PT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsthe focus of this study is to evaluate if the combination of an antibiotic with a ceramic biomaterial is effective in treating osteomyelitis in an infected animal model and to define which model and protocol are best suited for in vivo experiments of local bone infection treatment.

methodsa systematic review was carried out based on PRISMA statement guidelines. A PubMed search was conducted to find original papers on animal models of bone infections using local antibiotic delivery systems with the characteristics of bone substitutes. Articles without a control group, differing from the experimental group only by the addition of antibiotics to the bone substitute, were excluded.

resultsa total of 1185 records were retrieved, and after a three-step selection, 34 papers were included. Six manuscripts studied the effect of antibiotic-loaded biomaterials on bone infection prevention. Five articles studied infection in the presence of foreign bodies. In all but one, the combination of an antibiotic with bioceramic bone substitutes tended to prevent or cure bone infection while promoting biomaterial osteointegration.

conclusionsthis systematic review shows that the combination of antibiotics with bioceramic bone substitutes may be appropriate to treat bone infection when applied locally. The variability of the animal models, time to develop an infection, antibiotic used, way of carrying and releasing antibiotics, type of ceramic material, and endpoints limits the conclusions on the ideal therapy, enhancing the need for consistent models and guidelines to develop an adequate combination of material and antimicrobial agent leading to an effective human application.

Indexed as

antibacterial materialsbone-graft substitutesbone infectionbone regenerationceramic-based biomaterialsscaffolds

Identifiers

PMID36984267
PMCPMC10056339
OpenAlexW4327731605

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.