ArticlePreventive medicine reports2026
Etiologic spectrum and diagnostic gaps of spinal infections: a cross-sectional study in Qingdao, China.
Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Spinal infections drive global morbidity; however, accurate pathogen detection remains poor. We aimed to profile pathogens in local patients with spinal infections and assess pre-referral identification rates for different spinal infections. Methods: This retrospective, cross-sectional study was conducted at a tertiary referral center in Qingdao, China, among adult patients with spinal infections admitted between December 2012 and December 2024. After approval from the relevant ethics committee, data were extracted from 181 culture-positive patients. Demographics, clinical features, history, and diagnostic methods were reviewed; infections were classified; and accurate pathogen identification rates were calculated. Results: Among the 181 participants, pyogenic spondylitis, brucellar spondylitis, tuberculous spondylitis, and fungal spondylitis accounted for 44.20 %, 35.91 %, 15.47 %, and 4.42 %, respectively. After excluding 64 patients initially diagnosed at our hospital, pre-referral accuracies were 12.50 %, 0 %, 9.76 %, and 25.00 % for pyogenic spondylitis, tuberculous spondylitis, brucellar spondylitis, and fungal spondylitis, respectively. The predominant pyogenic organisms identified were Conclusion: Delays exist in pathogen detection in spinal infections, highlighting the urgency need to improve conventional microbiological techniques and raise clinical awareness.
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.