ArticleArthroplasty today2024
Dalbavancin Use in Bone and Joint Infections.
Article in Arthroplasty today, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical outcomes of dalbavancin versus standard therapy for non-severe skin and soft-tissue infections as well as bone and joint infections: a retrospective observational study.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2026Article
- Study of the release kinetics of dalbavancin from bone allografts.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2025Article
- Prevention and Modern Strategies for Managing Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcal Infections in Prosthetic Joint Infections (PJIs).Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Dalbavancin (DAL) off-label use for treating bone and joint infections has increased especially as long-term intravenous access is not needed. Little is known about the effectiveness and safety of its use. Methods: This retrospective, single-center, descriptive study included adults treated with DAL for bone or joint infections over a 4-year period (2019-2023). Patient demographics, infection type and location, pre-DAL antibiotic and surgical treatments, indication for DAL, and clinical outcomes were collected. Risk factor analysis for 1-year infection recurrence was performed. Results: There were 58 patient encounters of bone and/or joint infections treated with DAL. The majority of patients were treated for osteomyelitis (81.0%) followed by native (8.6%) and peri-prosthetic (10.4%) joint infection. Fifty (86.2%) patients underwent surgical intervention, and 17 (68%) of the 25 patients with infected hardware had full hardware removal. The most common pathogen identified was Conclusions: Our findings support DAL as an effective treatment for bone and joint infection when combined with surgical debridement and hardware removal. Failure to remove infected hardware significantly increased the risk of infection recurrence within 1 year. Randomized controlled trials are needed to further support DAL as a novel treatment for orthopedic infections.
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.