Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38373976›Full record

SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2024

Systematic review and meta-analysis of single-stage vs two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection: a call for a prospective randomized trial.

Yong Zhao, Shaohua Fan, Zhangfu Wang, Xueli Yan, Hua Luo

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic ReviewComparative Study
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
14.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Periprosthetic Joint Infection (PJI).The archives of bone and joint surgery · 2025
    Review
  19. Periprosthetic joint infections - a scoping review.Innovative surgical sciences · 2024
    Article
  20. Review
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.

Yong Zhao *Department of Orthopedics, Shanghai Fengxian District Central Hospital, Shanghai, 201400, China.
Shaohua Fan *Department of Orthopedics, Taizhou Hospital of Zhejiang Province affiliated to Wenzhou Medical University, Taizhou, 317000, Zhejiang, China.
Zhangfu Wang *Department of Orthopedics, Taizhou Hospital of Zhejiang Province affiliated to Wenzhou Medical University, Taizhou, 317000, Zhejiang, China.
Xueli YanDepartment of Orthopedics, Taizhou Hospital of Zhejiang Province affiliated to Wenzhou Medical University, Taizhou, 317000, Zhejiang, China.
Hua LuoDepartment of Orthopedics, Taizhou Hospital of Zhejiang Province affiliated to Wenzhou Medical University, Taizhou, 317000, Zhejiang, China. 18732196660@163.com.
Wenzhou Medical University · CNXian Central Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeriprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a severe complication of joint arthroplasty that causes significant pain and economic loss. This study aimed to determine whether the current evidence supports single-stage revision for PJI based on reinfection and reoperation rates.

methodsWe searched the PubMed, EBSCO, Medline, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to 30 May 2023 to identify studies that compared single-stage revision and two-stage revision for PJI. Data on reinfection and reoperation rates were pooled.

resultsThis meta-analysis included a total of 40 studies with 8711 patients. Overall, there was no significant difference between single- and two-stage revision regarding the postoperative reinfection rate and reoperation rate. Subgroup analysis by surgery period and different surgical sites revealed no difference between the two groups in the reinfection and reoperation rates.

conclusionsBased on the available evidence, our study did not identify a significant difference in reinfection and reoperation rates between single- and two-stage revision for PJI. Given the limitations in inclusion/exclusion criteria and the observed heterogeneity, we acknowledge the complexity of drawing strong conclusions. Therefore, we suggest that the choice between single- and two-stage revision should be carefully considered on an individual basis, taking into account patient-specific factors and further research developments.

Indexed as

Prosthesis-Related InfectionsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReoperationHumansProspective StudiesReinfectionPeriprosthetic joint infectionReinfectionReoperationSingle-stageTwo-stage

Identifiers

PMID38373976
PMCPMC10875807
OpenAlexW4391944559

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.