ReviewBiomedicines2024
Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute Periprosthetic Infections with the BioFire
Review in Biomedicines, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dual-antibiotic bone cement (gentamicin + vancomycin) in preventing and treating infections during revision knee arthroplasty in high-risk patients.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Performance and potential utility of the BioFire Joint Infection Panel with synovial fluid and joint tissue specimens.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2025Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of the alpha-defensin lateral flow test in periprosthetic shoulder infection: a retrospective study.Clinics in shoulder and elbow · 2025Article
- Implant removal: benefits and drawbacks - Results of a survey with five hundred participants from the Italian Society of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology (SIOT) and comparison with other international trends.International orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Molecular diagnostics for perioperative microbial identification in periprosthetic joint infection: A scoping review and proposal of a diagnostic flow chart.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite ongoing efforts to enhance diagnostic and treatment processes, the success rate for eradicating infections, particularly prosthetic joint infections (PJIs), currently stands at around 50%. For acute infections occurring shortly after arthroplasty, guidelines recommend a treatment known as DAIR (debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention). This approach is suggested for infections within 30 days post-arthroplasty or with less than 3 weeks of symptoms, provided that there is a stable implant and adequate soft-tissue mass. Several authors have suggested extending the use of DAIR beyond the initial 3-week period in specific cases. This extension practice seems increasingly feasible due to the rapid diagnostic capabilities offered by BioFire
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.