Comment on Lunz et al. Impact and Modification of the New PJI-TNM Classification for Periprosthetic Joint Infections.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. High intra- and inter-observer reliability of the PJI-TNM classification in acute and chronic periprosthetic hip joint infection.Journal of bone and joint infection · 2026
   Article
2. The PJI-TNM Classification as Predictor for Revision-Free Implant Survival Rates in Patients with Periprosthetic Joint Infection of the Hip or Knee Joint.Infectious disease reports · 2025
   Article
3. Reply to Alt et al. Comment on "Lunz et al. Impact and Modification of the New PJI-TNM Classification for Periprosthetic Joint Infections.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023
   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

4 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract