ReviewJournal of orthopaedics2025
Comparing piperacillin/tazobactam to current guidelines for the treatment of open fractures: A systematic review.
Review in Journal of orthopaedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Current guidelines call for the use of a first-generation cephalosporin with or without an aminoglycoside for the treatment of open fractures. Due to its superior safety profile and single-dose administration, Piperacillin/tazobactam (PT) may be an effective alternative. The present systematic literature review aimed to evaluate the hypothesis that PT antibiotic prophylaxis does not differ in clinical outcomes as compared to the current guidelines in the treatment of open fractures. Methods: Five databases were queried for literature pertaining to PT administration for open fractures. A 2-author screening process was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Methodologic index for non-randomized studies criteria was used to objectively assess the methodologic quality of the studies reviewed. Retrospective cohort studies that compared PT to current guidelines in open fractures were included. Results: Four retrospective cohort studies consisting of 752 patients were included. The injury severity score (ISS) score was higher for the PT group, 18.1, versus the control group, 14.5 (p = .0008). Seventy-eight patients developed a surgical site infection (SSI) in the PT group versus 67 patients in the control group (p = .82). Twenty-one patients developed an acute kidney injury (AKI) in the PT group versus 19 in the control group (p = .51). There was no difference in the number of patients who developed resistant pathogens (6 (PT group) vs. 1 (control group); p = .99). Length of stay was greater in the PT group, 16.4 days, compared to the control group, 10.5 days (p=<0.00001). Conclusion: The use of piperacillin/tazobactam for open fractures does not differ from first-generation cephalosporins with or without an aminoglycoside in regard to SSI, AKI, return to operating room, 1-year mortality, non-union, and development of resistant pathogens. LOS was significantly longer in the PT group but may be explained by a greater ISS. PT may be a non-inferior alternative to current guidelines due to its better safety profile and single-dose administration method, however, this review is limited by the lack of side effect reporting and underscores the need for larger prospective studies that compare side effect profiles between PT and control groups.
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.