ReviewJournal of orthopaedics2026
Outcomes and safety of antibiotic-loaded calcium sulfate beads in orthopaedics: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Journal of orthopaedics, 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
Introduction: Calcium sulfate (CS) has emerged as a local antibiotic delivery system, offering biodegradability, osteoconductive properties and sustained antibiotic release. The aim was to evaluate the clinical outcomes and safety of antibiotic-loaded CS beads as an adjunct in the management and prevention of orthopaedic infections. Methods: The systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies reporting outcomes on the use of antibiotic-loaded CS beads in orthopaedics were considered eligible. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) criteria. Evaluated outcomes included rates of infection eradication or incidence, bone union, CS resorption, complications and reinterventions. Exploratory meta-analyses used a random-effects model, with heterogeneity assessed via the I Results: The systematic search included 41 studies. No randomized controlled trials were identified. Twenty-three studies examined patients with osteomyelitis, yielding a pooled infection eradication rate of 88% (95% CI: 85 to 90%; I Conclusion: Current evidence describes favorable infection eradication rates when antibiotic-loaded CS beads are used as an adjunct in orthopaedic infection management and prevention, but the absence of comparative trials precludes conclusions regarding independent efficacy. All studies showed complete CS resorption. Wound-related complications were substantial in osteomyelitis cases, while other adverse events were rare. Higher-quality comparative studies are required before routine adoption.
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.