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}
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.
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.