ArticleBone & joint research2026
Accurate quantification of the bacterial inoculum and tissue load in a preclinical model of implant-related infection.
Article in Bone & joint research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Establishment of a human osteocyte model to reveal mechanisms of chronic Staphylococcus epidermidis bone and joint infections.Bone & joint research · 2026Article
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
Abstract
Aims: Orthopaedic device-related infections are a major and growing clinical complication of joint arthroplasty surgery. Preclinical models are vital for developing strategies for prevention and treatment of these infections but suffer from imprecise determination of pathogen load during the experimental infection. We sought to establish a protocol for the accurate measurement of pathogen load using genome-based quantification in a preclinical implant-related infection model. Methods: Results: Attachment studies of strain ATCC25923 to pins revealed that bacterial load peaked and stabilized after 20 minutes, with ddPCR analysis showing superior reproducibility and higher yields than CFU counting: ddPCR (mean 46,532 genome copies/mm² (SD 14,413; 33,904 to 62,235), CFU: 3,751 CFU/mm² (SD 4,936; 743.1 to 9,448) . Similar findings were recorded for three other strains tested, demonstrating the inaccuracy of CFU analysis. Pins coated with ATCC25923 for 20 minutes were selected for the mouse model. At 18 days post-infection, ddPCR analysis of 20 mm tibial histological sections from individual mice demonstrated residual bacterial loads (mean bacterial genomes/µm) between mice of 1.50 to 3.46 (0.36 to 6.73) and 8.64 to 39.14 (5.27 to 47.86). The potential for performing transcriptomic analysis was also demonstrated using the above tissue section preparation. Conclusion: Our approach of ddPCR quantification from histological sections offers improved accuracy and reproducibility for readouts of bacterial load from input to endpoint, independent of bacterial culturability, in a preclinical model of PJI.
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.