Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41054758›Full record

ArticleIndian journal of orthopaedics2025

Single-Dose

Iciar Sala-Utrilla, Paula Castells-Ayuso, Ignacio Miranda, Francisco J Miranda

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Indian journal of orthopaedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Iciar Sala-UtrillaFacultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Católica de Valencia, Valencia, Spain.
Paula Castells-AyusoHospital Vithas 9 de Octubre, Valencia, Spain.
Ignacio MirandaFacultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Católica de Valencia, Valencia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-5691-7350
Francisco J MirandaServicio de Cirugía Ortopédica y Traumatología, Hospital Arnau de Vilanova, C/ Sant Climent 12, 46015 Valencia, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aim and hypothesis: To compare antibiotic prophylaxis with a single or multiple doses in total knee arthroplasty surgery. To assess whether the use of a multiple dose is justified in routine clinical practice. The starting hypothesis is that the use of multiple doses of prophylactic antibiotics does not reduce surgical infection and may increase costs, hospital stay and antibiotic resistance. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature was carried out following the PRISMA guidelines. The search was carried out on 5 April 2024 in the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases by entering the terms: (antibiotic prophylaxis) AND ((total knee arthroplasty) OR (knee prosthesis)) and the Joanna Briggs Institute quality assessment tool was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. Results: Four articles have been included, all of which are retrospective cohort studies comparing the use of single-dose antibiotic prophylaxis with multiple-dose prophylaxis in total knee arthroplasty. No significant differences have been observed in terms of postsurgical infection rate between single- and multiple-dose prophylaxes. Conclusions: The use of multiple-dose antibiotic prophylaxis in total knee arthroplasty has not been shown to reduce infections or other complications compared to single-dose antibiotic prophylaxis. No evidence has been found to justify the use of multiple-dose antibiotic prophylaxis in knee arthroplasty surgery.

Indexed as

Antibiotic prophylaxisKnee arthroplastyMultiple-dose antibioticSingle-dose antibiotic

Identifiers

PMID41054758
PMCPMC12496366

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.