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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Diep et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: