| Title |
Antibiotics and antiseptics for preventing infection in people receiving revision total hip and knee prostheses: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Infectious Diseases, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12879-016-2063-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jeffrey Voigt, Michael Mosier, Rabih Darouiche |
| Abstract |
Infection rates in revision (second and subsequent) major joint arthroplasty continues to be a significant issue with rates 2-3 times those of primary procedures. The effect of antibiotic and antiseptic prophylaxis on outcomes for this type of surgery has not been adequately reviewed. A systematic search of the main databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating antibiotics and antiseptics was conducted to evaluate the predetermined endpoints of infection. There were five (5) RCTs identified that examined the effects of antibiotic and antiseptic prophylaxis on infections after revision total hip arthroplasty [THA] (total of 304 participants) and total knee arthroplasty [TKA] (total of 206 participants). For TKA, preoperative systemic intravenous (IV) antibiotic prophylaxis plus antibiotic cement may be effective in reducing the incidence of infection in revision TKA at 8+ years. These results however should be interpreted with caution due to the significant biases. For revision THA, there is no RCT evidence that antibiotics/antiseptics have any effect on the infection rate. There is a lack of high quality data demonstrating an effect of antibiotics or antiseptics on infection rates in revision THA/TKA. Considering the rate of infections in revisions is 2-3X that of primary procedures and; there is a consensus recommendation to use similar antibiotic and antiseptic regimens in both primary and revision procedures, there is a need for high quality studies in revision THA/TKA. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 78 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 13 | 17% |
| Unknown | 32 | 41% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 30 | 38% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 1% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Unknown | 35 | 45% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 December 2016.
All research outputs
#14,880,767
of 22,914,829 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#4,097
of 7,693 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#240,580
of 418,945 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#111
of 202 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,914,829 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,693 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 418,945 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 202 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.