2022 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Prevention and Treatment of Glucocorticoid-Induced Osteoporosis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective is to update recommendations for prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP) for patients with rheumatic or nonrheumatic conditions receiving >3 months treatment with glucocorticoids (GCs) ≥2.5 mg daily. METHODS: An updated systematic literature review was performed for clinical questions on nonpharmacologic, pharmacologic treatments, discontinuation of medications, and sequential therapy. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to rate the certainty of evidence. A Voting Panel achieved ≥70% consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations. RESULTS: For adults beginning or continuing >3 months of GC treatment, we strongly recommend as soon as possible after initiation of GCs, initial assessment of fracture risks with clinical fracture assessment, bone mineral density with vertebral fracture assessment or spinal x-ray, and Fracture Risk Assessment Tool if ≥40 years old. For adults at medium, high, or very high fracture risk, we strongly recommend pharmacologic treatment. Choice of oral or intravenous bisphosphonates, denosumab, or parathyroid hormone analogs should be made by shared decision-making. Anabolic agents are conditionally recommended as initial therapy for those with high and very high fracture risk. Recommendations are made for special populations, including children, people with organ transplants, people who may become pregnant, and people receiving very high-dose GC treatment. New recommendations for both discontinuation of osteoporosis therapy and sequential therapies are included. CONCLUSION: This guideline provides direction for clinicians and patients making treatment decisions for management of GIOP. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies.

2023 American College of Rheumatology and American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons Clinical Practice Guideline for the Optimal Timing of Elective Hip or Knee Arthroplasty for Patients With Symptomatic Moderate-to-Severe Osteoarthritis or Advanced Symptomatic Osteonecrosis With Secondary Arthritis for Whom Nonoperative Therapy Is Ineffective.

OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-based consensus recommendations for the optimal timing of hip and knee arthroplasty to improve patient-important outcomes including, but not limited to, pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year for patients with symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis of the hip or knee who have previously attempted nonoperative therapy, and for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective, and who have chosen to undergo elective hip or knee arthroplasty (collectively referred to as TJA). METHODS: We developed 13 clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) questions. After a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low), and evidence tables were created. A Voting Panel, including 13 physicians and patients, discussed the PICO questions until consensus was achieved on the direction (for/against) and strength (strong/conditional) of the recommendations. RESULTS: The panel conditionally recommended against delaying TJA to pursue additional nonoperative treatment including physical therapy, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, ambulatory aids, and intraarticular injections. It conditionally recommended delaying TJA for nicotine reduction or cessation. The panel conditionally recommended delay for better glycemic control for patients who have diabetes mellitus, although no specific measure or level was identified. There was consensus that obesity by itself was not a reason for delay, but that weight loss should be strongly encouraged, and the increase in operative risk should be discussed. The panel conditionally recommended against delay in patients who have severe deformity or bone loss, or in patients who have a neuropathic joint. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low quality. CONCLUSION: This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations regarding the optimal timing of TJA in patients who have symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective to improve patient-important outcomes, including pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year. We acknowledge that the evidence is of low quality primarily due to indirectness and hope future research will allow for further refinement of the recommendations.

2022 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Prevention and Treatment of Glucocorticoid-Induced Osteoporosis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective is to update recommendations for prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP) for patients with rheumatic or nonrheumatic conditions receiving >3 months treatment with glucocorticoids (GCs) ≥2.5 mg daily. METHODS: An updated systematic literature review was performed for clinical questions on nonpharmacologic, pharmacologic treatments, discontinuation of medications, and sequential therapy. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to rate the certainty of evidence. A Voting Panel achieved ≥70% consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations. RESULTS: For adults beginning or continuing >3 months of GC treatment, we strongly recommend as soon as possible after initiation of GCs, initial assessment of fracture risks with clinical fracture assessment, bone mineral density with vertebral fracture assessment or spinal x-ray, and Fracture Risk Assessment Tool if ≥40 years old. For adults at medium, high, or very high fracture risk, we strongly recommend pharmacologic treatment. Choice of oral or intravenous bisphosphonates, denosumab, or parathyroid hormone analogs should be made by shared decision-making. Anabolic agents are conditionally recommended as initial therapy for those with high and very high fracture risk. Recommendations are made for special populations, including children, people with organ transplants, people who may become pregnant, and people receiving very high-dose GC treatment. New recommendations for both discontinuation of osteoporosis therapy and sequential therapies are included. CONCLUSION: This guideline provides direction for clinicians and patients making treatment decisions for management of GIOP. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies.

2023 American College of Rheumatology and American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons Clinical Practice Guideline for the Optimal Timing of Elective Hip or Knee Arthroplasty for Patients With Symptomatic Moderate-to-Severe Osteoarthritis or Advanced Symptomatic Osteonecrosis With Secondary Arthritis for Whom Nonoperative Therapy Is Ineffective.

OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-based consensus recommendations for the optimal timing of hip and knee arthroplasty to improve patient-important outcomes including, but not limited to, pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year for patients with symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis of the hip or knee who have previously attempted nonoperative therapy, and for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective, and who have chosen to undergo elective hip or knee arthroplasty (collectively referred to as TJA). METHODS: We developed 13 clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) questions. After a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low), and evidence tables were created. A Voting Panel, including 13 physicians and patients, discussed the PICO questions until consensus was achieved on the direction (for/against) and strength (strong/conditional) of the recommendations. RESULTS: The panel conditionally recommended against delaying TJA to pursue additional nonoperative treatment including physical therapy, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, ambulatory aids, and intraarticular injections. It conditionally recommended delaying TJA for nicotine reduction or cessation. The panel conditionally recommended delay for better glycemic control for patients who have diabetes mellitus, although no specific measure or level was identified. There was consensus that obesity by itself was not a reason for delay, but that weight loss should be strongly encouraged, and the increase in operative risk should be discussed. The panel conditionally recommended against delay in patients who have severe deformity or bone loss, or in patients who have a neuropathic joint. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low quality. CONCLUSION: This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations regarding the optimal timing of TJA in patients who have symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective to improve patient-important outcomes, including pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year. We acknowledge that the evidence is of low quality primarily due to indirectness and hope future research will allow for further refinement of the recommendations.

2023 American College of Rheumatology and American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons Clinical Practice Guideline for the Optimal Timing of Elective Hip or Knee Arthroplasty for Patients With Symptomatic Moderate-to-Severe Osteoarthritis or Advanced Symptomatic Osteonecrosis With Secondary Arthritis for Whom Nonoperative Therapy Is Ineffective.

OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-based consensus recommendations for the optimal timing of hip and knee arthroplasty to improve patient-important outcomes including, but not limited to, pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year for patients with symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis of the hip or knee who have previously attempted nonoperative therapy, and for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective, and who have chosen to undergo elective hip or knee arthroplasty (collectively referred to as TJA). METHODS: We developed 13 clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) questions. After a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low), and evidence tables were created. A Voting Panel, including 13 physicians and patients, discussed the PICO questions until consensus was achieved on the direction (for/against) and strength (strong/conditional) of the recommendations. RESULTS: The panel conditionally recommended against delaying TJA to pursue additional nonoperative treatment including physical therapy, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, ambulatory aids, and intraarticular injections. It conditionally recommended delaying TJA for nicotine reduction or cessation. The panel conditionally recommended delay for better glycemic control for patients who have diabetes mellitus, although no specific measure or level was identified. There was consensus that obesity by itself was not a reason for delay, but that weight loss should be strongly encouraged, and the increase in operative risk should be discussed. The panel conditionally recommended against delay in patients who have severe deformity or bone loss, or in patients who have a neuropathic joint. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low quality. CONCLUSION: This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations regarding the optimal timing of TJA in patients who have symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective to improve patient-important outcomes, including pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year. We acknowledge that the evidence is of low quality primarily due to indirectness and hope future research will allow for further refinement of the recommendations.

How to recognize a trustworthy clinical practice guideline.

Trustworthy clinical practice guidelines represent a fundamental tool to summarize relevant evidence regarding a set of clinical choices and provide guidance for making optimal clinical decisions. Clinicians must differentiate between guidelines that provide trustworthy evidence guidance and those that do not. We present six questions clinicians should ask when evaluating a guideline's trustworthiness. (1) Are the recommendations clear?; (2) Have the panelists considered all alternatives?; (3) Have the panelists considered all patient-important outcomes?; (4) Is the recommendation based on an up-to-date systematic review?; (5) Is the strength of the recommendation compatible with the certainty of the evidence?; (6) Might conflicts of interest influence the recommendations? If yes, were they managed? Once the conclude they are dealing with a trustworthy guideline, clinicians must gain an understanding of the transparent evidence summary that the guideline will offer, and judge the applicability of trustworthy recommendations to their patients and settings. Consideration of the circumstances and values and preferences of patients will be crucial for all weak or conditional recommendations.

GRADE summary of findings tables enhanced understanding of values and preferences evidence.

OBJECTIVES: We conceptualize patient values and preferences as the relative importance of health outcomes (RIO) which are often obtained through utility elicitation research. A transparent and structured approach to present synthesized RIO evidence and the certainty of this evidence is needed. This study aims to adapt the summary of findings (SoF) table to describe the RIO. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We performed three interactive workshops with a protype version of the SoF table for RIO, evidence adapted from the SoF table for intervention effects. We then tested the new format through semi-structured interviews with professionals who interpret RIO evidence (e.g., systematic review authors and guideline developers). RESULTS: We adapted the SoF table for the presentation of RIO evidence. This SoF table may be easy to use, but bears one risk: some participants misunderstood the utility information and the variability around the RIO. We added a visual analogue scale to clarify the concept of utilities. CONCLUSION: Through a multi-stage process including brainstorming sessions and interviews, we adapted the SoF table to present RIO evidence. This table may enhance understanding of evidence synthesis of values and preferences, facilitating the incorporation of this type of evidence in decision-making.

2021 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To develop updated guidelines for the pharmacologic management of rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes (PICO) questions. After conducting a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the certainty of evidence. A voting panel comprising clinicians and patients achieved consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations. RESULTS: The guideline addresses treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), including conventional synthetic DMARDs, biologic DMARDs, and targeted synthetic DMARDs, use of glucocorticoids, and use of DMARDs in certain high-risk populations (i.e., those with liver disease, heart failure, lymphoproliferative disorders, previous serious infections, and nontuberculous mycobacterial lung disease). The guideline includes 44 recommendations (7 strong and 37 conditional). CONCLUSION: This clinical practice guideline is intended to serve as a tool to support clinician and patient decision-making. Recommendations are not prescriptive, and individual treatment decisions should be made through a shared decision-making process based on patients' values, goals, preferences, and comorbidities.

2021 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To develop updated guidelines for the pharmacologic management of rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes (PICO) questions. After conducting a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the certainty of evidence. A voting panel comprising clinicians and patients achieved consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations. RESULTS: The guideline addresses treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), including conventional synthetic DMARDs, biologic DMARDs, and targeted synthetic DMARDs, use of glucocorticoids, and use of DMARDs in certain high-risk populations (i.e., those with liver disease, heart failure, lymphoproliferative disorders, previous serious infections, and nontuberculous mycobacterial lung disease). The guideline includes 44 recommendations (7 strong and 37 conditional). CONCLUSION: This clinical practice guideline is intended to serve as a tool to support clinician and patient decision-making. Recommendations are not prescriptive, and individual treatment decisions should be made through a shared decision-making process based on patients' values, goals, preferences, and comorbidities.

Canadian Rheumatology Association Recommendation for the Use of COVID-19 Vaccination for Patients With Autoimmune Rheumatic Diseases.

OBJECTIVE: To develop guidance on the use of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARD). METHODS: The Canadian Rheumatology Association (CRA) formed a multidisciplinary panel including rheumatologists, researchers, methodologists, vaccine experts, and patients. The panel used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Outcomes were prioritized according to their importance for patients and clinicians. Evidence from the COVID-19 clinical trials was summarized. Indirect evidence for non-COVID-19 vaccines in ARD was also considered. The GRADE evidence-to-decision (EtD) framework was used to develop a recommendation for the use of the 4 COVID-19 vaccines approved in Canada as of March 25, 2021 (BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, ChAdOx1, and Ad26.COV2.S), over 4 virtual panel meetings. RESULTS: The CRA guideline panel suggests using COVID-19 vaccination in persons with ARD. The panel unanimously agreed that for the majority of patients, the potential health benefits of vaccination outweigh the potential harms in people with ARDs. The recommendation was graded as conditional because of low or very low certainty of the evidence on the effects in the population of interest, primarily due to indirectness and imprecise effect estimates. The panel felt strongly that persons with autoimmune rheumatic diseases who meet local eligibility should not be required to take additional steps compared to people without ARDs to obtain their vaccination. Guidance on medications, implementation, monitoring of vaccine uptake, and research priorities are also provided. CONCLUSION: This recommendation will be updated over time as new evidence emerges, with the latest recommendation, evidence summaries, and EtD available on the CRA website.

Mortality at For-Profit Versus Not-For-Profit Hemodialysis Centers: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess differences in risk-adjusted mortality rates between for-profit (FP) and not-for-profit (NFP) hemodialysis facilities. We searched 10 databases for studies published between January 2001 to December 2019 that compared mortality at private hemodialysis facilities. We included observational studies directly comparing adjusted mortality rates between FP and NFP private hemodialysis providers in any language or country. We excluded evaluations of dialysis facilities that changed their profit status, studies with overlapping data, and studies that failed to adjust for patient age and some measure of clinical severity. Pairs of reviewers independently screened all titles and abstracts and the full text of potentially eligible studies, abstracted data, and assessed risk of bias, resolving disagreement by discussion. We included nine observational studies of hemodialysis facilities representing 1,163,144 patient-years. In pooled random-effects meta-analysis, the odds ratio of mortality in FP relative to NFP facilities was 1.07 (95% CI 1.04-1.11). Patients at FP hemodialysis facilities have 7 percent greater odds of death annually than patients with similar risk profiles at NFP facilities. Approximately 3,800 excess deaths might be averted annually if U.S. FP hemodialysis operators matched NFP mortality rates.

Changes in Market Share of Biologic and Targeted Synthetic Disease-Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drugs for Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results from the Ontario Best-Practice Research Initiative Database.

OBJECTIVE: For patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) who do not achieve adequate clinical response with combined conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (cs- DMARDs), initiation of advanced therapies such as biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) or targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) is recommended. Tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) are the oldest and most commonly used subgroup of advanced therapies. In the last decade, new non-TNFi advanced therapy options have become available. We described the relative use of TNFi vs. non-TNFi in Ontario-based practices from 2008-2017. METHODS: Adult patients with RA enrolled in the Ontario Best Practices Research Initiative (OBRI) database who started bDMARDs or tsDMARDs anytime during or within 30 days prior to enrollment were included. The proportion of patients treated with TNFi vs. non-TNFi agents between 2008 and 2017 was described for all patients and those initiating their first bDMARD/tsDMARD. All TNFi therapies were included. Non-TNFi included Abatacept, Rituximab, Tocilizumab, and Tofacitinib. RESULTS: A total of 1,057 patients were included, of whom 72.0% were bDMARD/tsDMARD naïve. In 2008, the relative non-TNFi use was 5.4% in all patients while it was 0% in bDMARD/ts- DMARD-naïve patients. In 2017, the proportion of patients using non-TNFi increased to 33.8% among all patients and 33.3% in bDMARD/tsDMARD-naïve patients. CONCLUSION: This descriptive analysis of data from the OBRI cohort reveals that TNFi are still used in the majority of cases; however, there has been an increase in the use of non-TNFi therapies both overall and as first-line advanced therapy. This trend towards non-TNFi therapies as first-line advanced therapy may be partially explained by the shift in guideline recommendations from TNFi as first-line to any of the advanced therapeutics.

Discontinuation of biologic therapy due to lack/loss of response and adverse events is similar between TNFi and non-TNFi class: Results from a real-world rheumatoid arthritis cohort.

OBJECTIVES: Time to discontinuation of biologic therapy may be related to mechanism of action. We aimed to compare discontinuation of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) versus non-TNFi in an observational rheumatoid arthritis cohort. METHODS: Patients enrolled in the Ontario Best Practices Research Initiative (OBRI) starting biologic agents on or after 1st January 2010 were included. Time to discontinuation due to (1) any reason, (2) any of lack/loss of response, adverse events (AEs), physician, or patient decision, (3) lack/loss of response, and (4) AEs were assessed using Kaplan-Meier survival and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 932 patients were included of whom 174 (18.7%) received non-TNFi and 758 (81.3%) received TNFi. Over a median follow-up of 1.7 years, discontinuation was reported for 416 (44.6%) due to any reason, 367 (39.4%) due to any of lack/loss of response, AEs, physician, or patient decision, 192 (20.6%) due to lack/loss of response, and 102 (10.9%) due to AEs. After adjusting for propensity score, there was no significant difference in discontinuation between the two classes due to any reason [HR 1.14 (0.90-1.46), p = 0.28], lack/loss of response [HR: 1.01 (0.70-1.47), p = 0.95], and AEs [HR: 1.06 (0.64-1.73), p = 0.83]. Similar results were found in biologic naïve patients. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrates that discontinuation of therapy is similar in patients started on TNFi and non-TNFi therapies. There was also no significant difference in stopping due to lack/loss of response or AEs, suggesting that these reasons should not drive the selection of one treatment over another.

Comparing low-molecular-weight heparin dosing for treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with obesity (RIETE registry).

Because of the absence of comparative evidence, current guidelines and product monographs diverge in the dosing of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for obese patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE). We used the RIETE registry to compare the primary composite outcomes (VTE recurrence, major bleeding, or death) in patients with VTE who weighed >100 kg during LMWH therapy with capped doses of LMWH (18 000 IU/d) vs uncapped doses (>18 000 IU/d). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to account for possible confounders. A total of 2846 patients who weighed >100 kg were included: 454 (16%) received capped doses of LMWH, and the remaining 2392 received uncapped doses. Mean (standard deviation) LMWH treatment duration was 14.8 (20.6) and 14.3 (32.3) days, respectively. Thirty-one patients (1.9%) had VTE recurrences, 38 (1.3%) had bleeding episodes, 65 (2.3%) died, and 122 (4.3%) had at least 1 of the composite outcomes. Unadjusted outcome rates revealed that capped dosing was associated with a decrease in the composite outcome (rate ratio, 0.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.04-0.75). Multivariable analysis confirmed that patients who received capped doses had significantly lower rates of the composite outcome (odds ratio, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.04-0.68) while receiving LMWH. These retrospective observational data suggest that capped dosing of LMWH is an acceptable alternative to uncapped dosing based on body weight, given the significantly lower composite event rate of VTE recurrence, major bleeding, and all-cause death.

Engaging residents to choose wisely: Resident Doctors of Canada resource stewardship recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Resident doctors are integral to healthcare delivery in Canada. Engaging residents in resource stewardship is important for professional development, but also as they are drivers of healthcare resource use. To date, no national resident-specific resource stewardship guideline has been developed. Resident Doctors of Canada (RDoC) in collaboration with Choosing Wisely Canada (CWC) sought to develop an evidence-informed, consensus-based list of five recommendations to promote resource stewardship. METHODS: RDoC convened a taskforce with diverse geographic and specialty representation to develop candidate recommendations targeting resident resource stewardship behaviours using a consensus-based process, supported by a literature review. Residents across the country provided feedback on the candidate recommendations via an online questionnaire. The taskforce used this feedback to finalize the list. RESULTS: The taskforce prepared 28 candidate recommendations for consideration. A detailed literature review and consensus process narrowed this list to 12 candidate recommendations for consultation. A total of 754 residents (754/10,068 residents = 7.5%) representing all provinces and levels of residency training reviewed and ranked the candidate recommendations. The highest-ranked recommendations comprised the final list. CONCLUSION: Resident doctors are willing and able to demonstrate leadership in advancing resource stewardship by the development of a national resident-specific list of Choosing Wisely Canada recommendations.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis in the Management of Open Fractures: A Systematic Survey of Current Practice and Recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Evidence with regard to antibiotic prophylaxis for patients with open fractures of the extremities is limited. We therefore conducted a systematic survey addressing current practice and recommendations. METHODS: We included publications from January 2007 to June 2017. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for clinical studies and surveys of surgeons; WorldCat for textbooks; and web sites for guidelines and institutional protocols. RESULTS: We identified 223 eligible publications that reported 100 clinical practice patterns and 276 recommendations with regard to systemic antibiotic administration, and 3 recommendations regarding local antibiotic administration alone. Most publications of clinical practice patterns used regimens with both gram-positive and gram-negative coverage and continued the administration for 2 to 3 days. Most publications recommended prophylactic systemic antibiotics. Most recommendations suggested gram-positive coverage for less severe injuries and administration duration of 3 days or less. For more severe injuries, most recommendations suggested broad antimicrobial coverage continued for 2 to 3 days. Most publications reported intravenous administration of antibiotics immediately. CONCLUSIONS: Current practice and recommendations strongly support early systemic antibiotic prophylaxis for patients with open fractures of the extremities. Differences in antibiotic regimens, doses, and durations of administration remain in both practice and recommendations. Consensus with regard to optimal practice will likely require well-designed randomized controlled trials. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The current survey of literature systematically provides surgeons' practice and the available expert recommendations from 2007 to 2017 on the use of prophylactic antibiotics in the management of open fractures of extremities.