Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42169693›Full record

ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2026

16S rRNA Bacterial Identification in Evaluation of Orthopedic Infections and its Limited Role in Antimicrobial Stewardship.

Joseph A McBride, Memee Moua, Alana Sterkel, Eduard Matkovic, William Rehrauer, Jens Eickhoff, Marin L Schweizer, David Andes

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Joseph A McBrideDepartment of Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3434-8032
Memee MouaDepartment of Dermatology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Alana SterkelDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3581-0316
Eduard MatkovicDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1492-5170
William RehrauerDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8809-1215
Jens EickhoffDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0525-6462
Marin L SchweizerDepartment of Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
David AndesDepartment of Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7927-9950

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: 16S bacterial identification is a molecular diagnostic test that can aid in the diagnosis and management of orthopedic infections. The study aims to describe the diagnostic value of 16S for orthopedic infections and whether results of 16S impact antibiotic de-escalation. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included all patient encounters with 16S performed for evaluation of orthopedic infections at 1 Midwest academic center over a 5-year prepandemic period. Qualitative descriptions of the clinical cases, antibiotics, and 16S results were evaluated. Results: Four hundred fifty-two episodes were included for analysis. Overall, 9.5% of 16S tests detected bacteria. The most common indication for testing was for evaluation of septic arthritis. For diagnosing infectious episodes, 16S had a sensitivity of 15.5%, a specificity of 98%, a positive predictive value of 90.7%, and a negative predictive value of 47.9%. Analysis of all episodes demonstrated antibiotic de-escalation from pre-16S to post-16S time points. However, antibiotics were continued for a large number of episodes with negative 16S when judged as infectious by the treating clinician. Conclusions: 16S bacterial identification aided in the diagnosis and treatment of only a minority of orthopedic infections and results did not serve as a useful tool for antimicrobial de-escalation.

Indexed as

16S bacterial identificationantimicrobial stewardshipdiagnostic stewardshipmusculoskeletal infectionsorthopedic infections

Identifiers

PMID42169693
PMCPMC13187843

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.