大多数研究调查生物膜在骨科评分较差使用标准化测量质量:系统评价。

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Daniel A Driscoll, Tyler Khilnani, Taylor Coates, Ajay Premkumar, Sita Nirupama Nishtala, Mathias P G Bostrom, Alberto V Carli
{"title":"大多数研究调查生物膜在骨科评分较差使用标准化测量质量:系统评价。","authors":"Daniel A Driscoll, Tyler Khilnani, Taylor Coates, Ajay Premkumar, Sita Nirupama Nishtala, Mathias P G Bostrom, Alberto V Carli","doi":"10.1002/jor.70034","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The development of bacterial biofilm is central to the pathogenesis of periprosthetic joint infections following arthroplasty. Consequently, biofilm research in orthopedic surgery has expanded. This study assessed the quality of current orthopedic literature pertaining to the study of biofilm and identified the most commonly used study designs and techniques. A literature search was conducted in PubMed and adapted for Embase and the Cochrane Library. Studies were stratified into in vitro, in vivo (animal), and clinical (human) studies. Studies were included if they evaluated biofilm in an orthopedic context. Clinical studies were included if biofilm was confirmed by a quantification or visualization. Studies were assessed based on study design, biofilm quantification and visualization techniques and quality using the MIABiE score, a standardized tool in appraising biofilm studies. Of 258 studies identified; 65 studies were included after screening. There were 35 studies (50.7%) that evaluated techniques for biofilm treatment, 14 studies (20.3%) evaluated materials for prevention of biofilm formation, and 20 studies (29.0%) investigated descriptive biofilm properties unrelated to treatment or prevention. In vitro studies were most common (62.3%, n = 43). Biofilm quantification techniques were used in 83.0% of studies (n = 57), while only 29 studies (42.0%) used visualization techniques. Most studies (n = 55, 84.6%) were classified as low-quality based on MIABiE.</p>","PeriodicalId":16650,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedic Research®","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Majority of Studies Investigating Biofilm in Orthopedics Score Poorly Using a Standardized Measure of Quality: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Daniel A Driscoll, Tyler Khilnani, Taylor Coates, Ajay Premkumar, Sita Nirupama Nishtala, Mathias P G Bostrom, Alberto V Carli\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jor.70034\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The development of bacterial biofilm is central to the pathogenesis of periprosthetic joint infections following arthroplasty. Consequently, biofilm research in orthopedic surgery has expanded. This study assessed the quality of current orthopedic literature pertaining to the study of biofilm and identified the most commonly used study designs and techniques. A literature search was conducted in PubMed and adapted for Embase and the Cochrane Library. Studies were stratified into in vitro, in vivo (animal), and clinical (human) studies. Studies were included if they evaluated biofilm in an orthopedic context. Clinical studies were included if biofilm was confirmed by a quantification or visualization. Studies were assessed based on study design, biofilm quantification and visualization techniques and quality using the MIABiE score, a standardized tool in appraising biofilm studies. Of 258 studies identified; 65 studies were included after screening. There were 35 studies (50.7%) that evaluated techniques for biofilm treatment, 14 studies (20.3%) evaluated materials for prevention of biofilm formation, and 20 studies (29.0%) investigated descriptive biofilm properties unrelated to treatment or prevention. In vitro studies were most common (62.3%, n = 43). Biofilm quantification techniques were used in 83.0% of studies (n = 57), while only 29 studies (42.0%) used visualization techniques. Most studies (n = 55, 84.6%) were classified as low-quality based on MIABiE.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16650,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Orthopaedic Research®\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Orthopaedic Research®\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.70034\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopaedic Research®","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.70034","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

细菌生物膜的发展是关节置换术后假体周围关节感染发病机制的核心。因此,生物膜在骨科手术中的研究得到了扩展。本研究评估了目前与生物膜研究有关的骨科文献的质量,并确定了最常用的研究设计和技术。在PubMed中进行了文献检索,并为Embase和Cochrane图书馆进行了改编。研究分为体外、体内(动物)和临床(人)研究。如果研究在骨科背景下评估生物膜,则纳入研究。如果生物膜被量化或可视化证实,则纳入临床研究。使用MIABiE评分(一种评价生物膜研究的标准化工具),基于研究设计、生物膜量化和可视化技术以及质量对研究进行评估。在确定的258项研究中;筛选后纳入65项研究。有35项研究(50.7%)评估了生物膜处理技术,14项研究(20.3%)评估了预防生物膜形成的材料,20项研究(29.0%)调查了与治疗或预防无关的描述性生物膜特性。体外研究最为常见(62.3%,n = 43)。83.0%的研究(n = 57)使用了生物膜定量技术,而只有29项研究(42.0%)使用了可视化技术。大多数研究(n = 55, 84.6%)基于MIABiE被归类为低质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Majority of Studies Investigating Biofilm in Orthopedics Score Poorly Using a Standardized Measure of Quality: A Systematic Review.

The development of bacterial biofilm is central to the pathogenesis of periprosthetic joint infections following arthroplasty. Consequently, biofilm research in orthopedic surgery has expanded. This study assessed the quality of current orthopedic literature pertaining to the study of biofilm and identified the most commonly used study designs and techniques. A literature search was conducted in PubMed and adapted for Embase and the Cochrane Library. Studies were stratified into in vitro, in vivo (animal), and clinical (human) studies. Studies were included if they evaluated biofilm in an orthopedic context. Clinical studies were included if biofilm was confirmed by a quantification or visualization. Studies were assessed based on study design, biofilm quantification and visualization techniques and quality using the MIABiE score, a standardized tool in appraising biofilm studies. Of 258 studies identified; 65 studies were included after screening. There were 35 studies (50.7%) that evaluated techniques for biofilm treatment, 14 studies (20.3%) evaluated materials for prevention of biofilm formation, and 20 studies (29.0%) investigated descriptive biofilm properties unrelated to treatment or prevention. In vitro studies were most common (62.3%, n = 43). Biofilm quantification techniques were used in 83.0% of studies (n = 57), while only 29 studies (42.0%) used visualization techniques. Most studies (n = 55, 84.6%) were classified as low-quality based on MIABiE.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Orthopaedic Research®
Journal of Orthopaedic Research® 医学-整形外科
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
3.60%
发文量
261
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Orthopaedic Research is the forum for the rapid publication of high quality reports of new information on the full spectrum of orthopaedic research, including life sciences, engineering, translational, and clinical studies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信