SynthesisBMC rheumatology2026
Perioperative biologic use and postoperative outcomes in patients with inflammatory arthritis: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC rheumatology, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the impact of continuing versus stopping biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) during the perioperative period on surgical site infections (SSIs), delayed wound healing, and disease flares in patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA) undergoing elective non-orthopaedic surgery.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review of observational studies assessing the perioperative management of bDMARDs in IA patients undergoing elective non-orthopaedic surgery. Searches were conducted across seven databases and trial registries from the year 2000 onwards. Eligible studies compared outcomes in patients who continued versus stopped biologic therapy. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool and due to heterogeneity data were synthesised narratively.
resultsEight observational studies met the inclusion criteria. All studies were at moderate or serious risk of bias. Four studies compared infections with two suggesting higher infection rates in the stop biologic group. Two studies assessed delayed wound healing, both suggesting higher rates in the stop group. Disease flares were more common in patients who stopped biologics in all three of the studies reporting this outcome. No studies assessed health-related quality of life.
conclusionsThe available observational evidence does not demonstrate a consistent increase in postoperative infection or wound complications related to biologic continuation, however, confidence in these findings is limited by serious risk of bias and outcome heterogeneity. High-quality randomised controlled trials are needed to inform the perioperative management guidelines for IA patients undergoing elective non-orthopaedic procedures.
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.