Primary Fibular Osteomyelitis in Children: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Osteomyelitis of the fibula is rare and is especially rare in children. The published literature is limited to case series and is thus lacking a comprehensive description of the disease. The purpose of this systematic review is to provide the first comprehensive summary of the demographics, presenting symptoms, laboratory values, microbiology, and treatment results of osteomyelitis of the fibula in children based on the existing literature. This institutional review board (IRB)-exempt systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocol (PRISMA-P) guidelines. Three search engines were used for a total of 239 studies. Twenty-six studies were screened by full text. Twelve articles underwent a quantitative analysis. Due to limited data and heterogenous reporting, the data were summarized descriptively. The methodologic quality of the studies was evaluated based on the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The average age was 7.71±3.49 years, and males comprised 57% of the 21 cases. The most common presenting symptoms were fever (86%), antalgic gait (57%), and localized tenderness (81%). The most common site of involvement was the distal third of the fibula (90%). The average C-reactive protein (CRP) was 90.1±38.3 mg/L, and the average erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) was 58.8±21.2 mm/hour. Staphylococcus aureus was the most cultured pathogen reported in 10/21 cases (48%). Open surgery was performed in 17/21 cases (81%), and there were no reported complications. Fever, antalgic gait, and localized tenderness should raise the index of suspicion. Prompt laboratory and radiographic evaluations can help reduce delays in diagnosis and improve outcomes. Blood and tissue cultures are currently performed in about half of the cases. Improvement in our microbiologic diagnosis has the potential to improve antibiotic selection. Local methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) prevalence must be taken into consideration when starting empiric antibiotic treatment. Surgical treatment is often required with a low complication rate. The clinical and laboratory parameters identified in this study have the potential for integration into a composite clinical score.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".