ArticleScientific reports2025
Impact of infectious disease specialist consultations on antibiotic treatment and outcomes of fracture-related infections.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The management of fracture-related infections (FRIs) is complex and requires collaboration among various specialists, including trauma and orthopedic surgeons, infectious disease (ID) specialists, and microbiologists. This study aimed to investigate the effects of ID consultations on antibiotic treatment and FRI outcomes. We conducted a retrospective chart review of data from adult patients with microbiologically diagnosed FRIs at a tertiary care hospital. In total, 123 patients with FRIs were included in the study, with a median follow-up period of 31 months. Sixty-five patients (52.8%) received continuous ID consultations until the completion of their treatment, whereas 58 patients (47.2%) either did not receive any ID consultations or had their consultations terminated prematurely. The patients who received continuous ID consultations were more likely to receive pathogen-directed oral antibiotics (76.9% vs. 36.2%; P < 0.001) and biofilm-active antibiotics (52.3% vs. 8.6%; P < 0.001) than those who did not receive such consultations. The multivariate analysis results indicated that Gustilo-Anderson grade 3 open fractures (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 3.89; P = 0.002), implant retention (aOR, 2.44; P = 0.04), and absence or early termination of ID consultations (aOR, 2.84; P = 0.02) were independent predictors of treatment failure. Recurrence was less frequent in the patients who received biofilm-active agents than in those who did not (11.8% vs. 33.8%; P = 0.03). In patients with FRI, appropriate ID consultations were associated with frequent use of biofilm-active antibiotics and improved outcomes.
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.