Role of coatings and materials of external fixation pins on the rates of pin tract infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Table 1 Cochrane risk of bias tool - clinical trials

Study	Random sequence generation	Allocation concealment	Blinding of patients, personnel	Blinding of outcome assessor	Incomplete outcome data	Selective outcome reporting	Other
Coester, 2006	Low	Low	Unclear	Low	Low	Low	Low
Masse, 2000	Low	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Low	Low	Low
Morone, 2001	Low	Low	Unclear	Unclear	Low	Low	Low
Pieske, 2010	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Pieske, 2011	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Pizà, 2004	Low	Low	Unclear	Unclear	Low	Low	Low
Pommer, 2002	Low	Low	Unclear	Low	Low	Low	Low

Table 2 Characteristics of seven studies selected and included for analysis

Author	Year	Level of evidence	Number of patient (n)	Coatings	Follow-up	Infection criteria	Infection rate	Conclusion
Masse	2000	2	24	Silver vs Steel	109 d vs 113 d	Mahan et al[22] criteria	30% vs 42.9%	No statistical difference
Moroni	2001	1	20	Hydroxyapatite vs Steel	6 wk	Checketts-Otterburn	0	No statistical difference
Pommer	2002	1	16	Hydroxyapatite vs Titanium	38 wk	Mahan et al[22] criteria	0% vs 13%	Statistically significant
Pizá	2004	1	23	Hydroxyapatite vs Steel	530 d	Checketts-Otterburn	30.4% vs 30.7%	No statistical difference
Coaster	2006	1	19	Silver vs Steel	16,7 wk	Bespoke	30% vs 21%	No statistical difference
Pieske	2010	2	20 vs 20	Steel vs Hydroxyapatite	65 d	Bespoke	5.3% vs 2.6%	No statistical difference
Pieske	2011	2	20 vs 20	Titanium vs Hydroxyapatite	56 d	Bespoke	0% vs 10%	No statistical difference