Timing of First Systemic Antibiotic Administration and Risk of Deep Infection in Adults with Open Long-Bone Fractures: A Systematic Review and Threshold-Specific Evidence Synthesis
- 1Department of Traumatology, Thai Binh University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Hung Yen 17000, Vietnam
- 2Department of Healthcare Organisation and Management, Faculty of Public Health, Thai Binh University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Hung Yen 17000, Vietnam
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Early systemic antibiotics are central to open-fracture care, but a 60 min operational target does not establish a biological infection threshold. We examined how time origin, cutoff, and outcome definition affect interpretation of reported associations. Methods: Evidence was reconstructed from two preserved bibliographic inventories containing 24 entries. Complete database-search exports were unavailable, and selection, extraction, ROBINS-E, and GRADE were not independently duplicated. The protocol was archived retrospectively on OSF (doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/7J8QN). Estimates were described separately by time origin, cutoff, adjustment, outcome, and follow-up for a target population aged at least 18 years. No pooled estimate was retained. Results: The historical evidence map contained 16 reports, including contextual reports that did not establish applicability to the target population. This is not a verified final included-study count. Within the preserved inventory, no threshold-by-time-origin group supplied two compatible adjusted estimates. A 191-patient cohort reported an adjusted odds ratio of 1.02 (95% CI 0.39–2.68) at 60 min after emergency-department arrival. Recorded appraisals indicated predominantly high or very high risk of bias and very low certainty; these judgements were not independently verified. Conclusions: Distinguishing care-process targets from causal thresholds improves interpretation of the available reports. However, incomplete searching and single-investigator assessment limit the reliability and completeness of this synthesis. The observational associations establish neither causal thresholds nor the safety of delay and do not justify postponing indicated prophylaxis.
Related
- Antibiotic-Loaded Hydrogel, Calcium Bead, and Cement in Periprosthetic Joint Infection Following Hip-Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Commercially Available Products
- Clinical Outcomes and Safety Associated with Adjunctive Antibiotic-Loaded Calcium Sulphate Beads in Hip and Knee Periprosthetic Joint Infection: A Systematic Review
- Intra-articular antibiotic delivery combined with one-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection: a systematic review.
- Preoperative Antibiotic Administration Before Distal Radius Fracture ORIF and Postoperative Outcomes: A Propensity-Matched Cohort Study
- Tobacco smoking history and antibiotic-resistant infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
BibTeX
@article{diep2026timing,
title = {{Timing of First Systemic Antibiotic Administration and Risk of Deep Infection in Adults with Open Long-Bone Fractures: A Systematic Review and Threshold-Specific Evidence Synthesis}},
author = {Nguyen The Diep and Nguyen Minh Chau and Phan Thanh Nam and Tien Van Nguyen},
journal = {Journal of clinical medicine},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.3390/jcm15197689},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/PMC13665906},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Timing of First Systemic Antibiotic Administration and Risk of Deep Infection in Adults with Open Long-Bone Fractures: A Systematic Review and Threshold-Specific Evidence Synthesis
AU - Nguyen The Diep
AU - Nguyen Minh Chau
AU - Phan Thanh Nam
AU - Tien Van Nguyen
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/01
JO - Journal of clinical medicine
DO - 10.3390/jcm15197689
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/PMC13665906
AB - Background/Objectives: Early systemic antibiotics are central to open-fracture care, but a 60 min operational target does not establish a biological infection threshold. We examined how time origin, cutoff, and outcome definition affect interpretation of reported associations. Methods: Evidence was reconstructed from two preserved bibliographic inventories containing 24 entries. Complete database-search exports were unavailable, and selection, extraction, ROBINS-E, and GRADE were not independently duplicated. The protocol was archived retrospectively on OSF (doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/7J8QN). Estimates were described separately by time origin, cutoff, adjustment, outcome, and follow-up for a target population aged at least 18 years. No pooled estimate was retained. Results: The historical evidence map contained 16 reports, including contextual reports that did not establish applicability to the target population. This is not a verified final included-study count. Within the preserved inventory, no threshold-by-time-origin group supplied two compatible adjusted estimates. A 191-patient cohort reported an adjusted odds ratio of 1.02 (95% CI 0.39–2.68) at 60 min after emergency-department arrival. Recorded appraisals indicated predominantly high or very high risk of bias and very low certainty; these judgements were not independently verified. Conclusions: Distinguishing care-process targets from causal thresholds improves interpretation of the available reports. However, incomplete searching and single-investigator assessment limit the reliability and completeness of this synthesis. The observational associations establish neither causal thresholds nor the safety of delay and do not justify postponing indicated prophylaxis.
SN - 2077-0383
ER -