ArticleTrauma surgery & acute care open2025
Bite injuries at a level 1 trauma center in Germany.
Article in Trauma surgery & acute care open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nationwide registry-based analysis of rabies exposures in Iran: Epidemiological patterns and post-exposure prophylaxis adherence.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2026Article
- Bite injuries in a connected world: a call for global consensus on clinical and public health action.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Bite injuries are a common occurrence and may result in significant morbidity. The aim of the study was to investigate bite injuries, their treatment, and consequences in the urban milieu of a European industrialized nation. Methods: A retrospective, monocentric analysis was conducted on data of bite injuries during the study period from 2010 to 2020. Factors such as age, sex, vaccination status, injury pattern, injury location, the duration of treatment in outpatient, inpatient, or intensive care settings were investigated together with radiological, laboratory, and microbiological parameters, as well as the therapies employed. Results: The majority of the included 442 patients were between the ages of 20 and 50, with a mean age of 37.2±18.4 years (0.7-91). The female sex was more frequently affected (59%). Most bite injuries were caused by dogs (49.9%), followed by cats (36.1%) and humans (9.8%) and were often caused by domestic animals (78%). The hand was the most common site of bites (n=251), followed by the forearms (n=75) and lower legs (n=43). In children under the age of 10, the head was the most common site of bites. In only 5% of patients, injuries extended to deeper structures. Wound infection was observed in 14.7% of the bite wounds. The mean number of treatment days for patients with infected bite wounds was significantly higher than that for patients with non-infected wounds, regardless of whether they were outpatients, inpatients, or intensive care patients (p=0.001, p<0.001, and p=0.003, respectively). Conclusions: In accordance with the severity of the injury, a prompt examination, imaging, laboratory diagnostics, and individualized therapy are required. The implementation of an early therapeutic regimen comprising debridement and irrigation, calculated antibiotic therapy, and immobilization can effectively mitigate the risk of developing a fulminant wound infection. Similarly, bite wounds caused by exotic species are to be treated with haste and precision. Level of evidence: Level III study: non-experimental descriptive studies.
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.