ReviewInfection2026
Short-course versus long-course antibiotics in bone infections: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Review in Infection, 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
purposeThe optimal duration of antibiotic therapy for bone infections remains controversial. We therefore conducted a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing short- versus long-course antibiotic therapy for bone infections.
methodsPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched through February 2026 for RCTs comparing short- and long-course antibiotic therapy in bone infections, including periprosthetic joint infection, diabetic foot osteomyelitis, vertebral osteomyelitis, and paediatric acute haematogenous osteomyelitis. Treatment failure and antibiotic-related adverse events were analysed using both intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) data. Risk of bias and certainty of evidence were assessed using ROB 1 and GRADE.
resultsIn the ITT analysis, no significant difference in treatment failure was observed between short- and long-course therapy (RR = 1.12, 95% CI 0.77-1.62, P = 0.55). The PP analysis suggested a potential increase in treatment failure with short-course therapy (RR = 1.47, 95% CI 1.00-2.16, P = 0.05). Short-course therapy was associated with a significantly lower risk of antibiotic-related adverse events (RR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.69-0.94, P = 0.006). Certainty of evidence was moderate for treatment failure outcomes and high for adverse events.
conclusionNo statistically significant difference in treatment failure was observed between short- and long-course antibiotic therapy in the ITT analysis, whereas short-course therapy was associated with significantly fewer antibiotic-related adverse events. However, the PP analysis suggested a possible increase in treatment failure with short-course therapy. The included bone infections were clinically heterogeneous, which may limit generalisability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42895606What 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.