ReviewEFORT open reviews2026
Optimizing the management of periprosthetic infections with artificial intelligence: current evidence and future directions.
Review in EFORT open reviews, 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
Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) are a serious complication in both primary arthroplasty and revision arthroplasty, posing a major challenge in orthopaedic surgery and creating a substantial financial burden. This literature review examines the current knowledge on PJI prediction, diagnosis and prognosis, with a focus on scoring systems and machine learning (ML) tools developed to improve their management. We conducted a narrative literature review by searching Medline, CENTRAL and Embase up to October 1, 2024, with independent dual-reviewer screening. Nine non-randomized studies were included, covering 297,981 prostheses and 7,190 PJIs. Two studies assessed prediction based on patient history but highlighted the need for refinement and multi-centre prospective validation. Five studies evaluated ML in diagnosis, showing promising accuracy, yet requiring broader validation in larger, more diverse clinical contexts. Two studies addressed prognosis, but models remain limited in providing individualized, treatment-specific insights. The development of ML models represents an interesting approach, given the rising prevalence of PJIs and the need for better management. However, available studies face important limitations, including small sample sizes, lack of external validation and limited transparency regarding parameters and models. To make ML tools clinically relevant, future research should prioritize external validation, larger multi-centre prospective studies and transparent reporting. Ultimately, robust ML models have the potential to enhance PJI management, improve patient outcomes and reduce healthcare costs.
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.