ArticleEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2026
Letter to the editor on "Topical antibiotic powder reduces fracture-related infections in pelvic and lower limb fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis": the denominator matters.
Article in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo clarify the interpretation of the reported increase in Gram-negative organisms after prophylactic topical antibiotic powder in a recent systematic review and meta-analysis.
methodsWe examined the published report and its supplementary bacterial-profile forest plot, compared the denominators used for microbiological outcomes with the full treatment-cohort denominators, and evaluated the resulting estimand in light of potential index-event bias and contemporary randomized evidence.
resultsSupplementary Material S3 used denominators of 56 powder recipients and 181 controls, although the seven contributing studies enrolled 999 and 1703 treated patients, respectively. In one contributing control group, the microbiological denominator also exceeded the number of reported FRIs. Therefore, the reported OR of 2.52 appears to describe the conditional distribution of Gram-negative organisms among selected breakthrough infections or isolates rather than patient-level Gram-negative FRI risk. Under the simplifying assumption that every reported Gram-negative event represented one patient, the corresponding crude proportions would be 2.1% and 2.3%. The largest included randomized trial similarly found no significant increase in Gram-negative-only infection.
conclusionA patient-level reanalysis using all treated participants as denominators and mutually exclusive microbiological categories is warranted. Until then, the finding should be interpreted as a possible change in the composition of breakthrough infections, not evidence of increased absolute Gram-negative risk, ecological selection, or resistance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42671453What 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.