ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
Comparative effectiveness of prophylactic antibiotic regimens in preventing infection in open fractures: a prospective cohort study.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOpen fractures, particularly Gustilo-Anderson grade III injuries, carry high risks of infection. This cohort study compared the effectiveness of three prophylactic antibiotic regimens in reducing a range of infection-related outcomes, including infection markers (ESR, CRP), wound colonization, clinical infections, fever, cellulitis, and abscess formation.
methodsIn this prospective cohort study, 600 patients aged 18–85 years with open fractures were enrolled at Shahid Bahonar Hospital, Iran (2020–2022). Participants were grouped by clinician-selected regimens: Group A (Cefazolin 1 g every 6 h + amikacin), Group B (Cefazolin 2 g every 8 h + amikacin), and Group C (Vancomycin 2 g every 12 h + amikacin). Multivariable logistic regression adjusted for confounders (age, fracture severity). Missing data (< 5%) were imputed.
resultsOf 978 patients screened, 600 completed follow-ups. Baseline demographics (mean age: 31.2 years; 82% male) were balanced. Group C had lower rates of elevated ESR (4.8% vs. 8.0% in Group A; adjusted RR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.40–0.92), clinical infection (4.7% vs. 8.0%; RR = 0.58, CI: 0.38–0.89), and deep infection (2.7% vs. 5.3%; RR = 0.51, CI: 0.29–0.90). Minor adverse events (rash/nausea) were balanced across all groups (5.5% overall), with no significant differences in incidence or type between regimens.
conclusionVancomycin-amikacin was associated with reduced infection markers and complications compared to cefazolin regimens in this observational cohort, supporting its consideration in high-risk settings. Causality requires confirmation through randomized trials.
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.