scholarly journals Alpha-Defensin versus Leukocyte Esterase in Periprosthetic Joint Infection: An Updated Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Zhizhuo Li ◽  
Qingyu Zhang ◽  
Lijun Shi ◽  
Fuqiang Gao ◽  
Wei Sun ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Periprosthetic Joint Infection ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Joint Infection ◽  
Area Under The Curve ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Systematic Research ◽  
High Diagnostic Accuracy

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication after arthroplasty. Prompt establishment of an infection diagnosis is critical but can be very challenging at present. In order to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of alpha-defensin or leukocyte esterase for PJI, we performed systematic research in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library to retrieve relevant studies. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed by two reviewers independently. A total of thirty-one eligible studies were finally included in the quantitative analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of alpha-defensin (21 studies) for the diagnosis of PJI were 0.89 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.83 to 0.93) and 0.96 (95% CI, 0.95 to 0.97), respectively. The value of the pooled diagnostic odds ratios (DOR) of alpha-defensin for PJI was 209.14 (95% CI, 97.31 to 449.50), and the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.98 (95% CI, 0.96 to 0.99). The pooled sensitivity and specificity of leukocyte esterase (17 studies) for the diagnosis of PJI were 0.90 (95% CI, 0.84 to 0.95) and 0.96 (95% CI, 0.93 to 0.97), respectively. The value of the DOR of leukocyte esterase for PJI was 203.23 (95% CI, 96.14 to 429.61), and the AUC was 0.98 (95% CI, 0.96 to 0.99). Based on the results of our meta-analysis, we can conclude that alpha-defensin and leukocyte esterase are valuable synovial fluid markers for identifying PJI with comparable high diagnostic accuracy.

scholarly journals Diagnostic Accuracy of D-Dimer in Periprosthetic Joint Infection: a diagnostic meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haitao Zhang ◽  
Xiaobo Sun ◽  
Pengfei Xin ◽  
Xingyang Zhu ◽  
Ke Jie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Periprosthetic Joint Infection ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Joint Infection ◽  
Random Effect Model ◽  
Positive Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Diagnostic Methods ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
D Dimer

Abstract Background: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is one of the most devastating complications after total joint replacement. Up to now, the diagnosis of PJI is still in a dilemma. As a novel biomarker, whether D-Dimer is valuable in the diagnosis of PJI remains controversial. This meta-analysis attempts to determine the diagnostic accuracy of D-Dimer in PJI.Methods: Relevant literature was retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library (from database establishment to April 2020). Literature quality was evaluated using Revman (Version 5.3). The random effect model was used in Stata version 14.0 software to combine sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio (LR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve and area under SROC (AUC) to evaluate the diagnostic value of overall D-Dimer for PJI. Meta regression and subgroup analysis were performed according to the threshold, the study design, the sample size, the diagnostic gold standard, the country of study, and the type of sample.Results:A total of 9 studies were included in this study, including 1592 patients. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of D-Dimer for PJI diagnosis are 0.82(95%CI, 0.72~0.89) and 0.73(95%CI, 0.58~0.83), respectively. The pooled positive likelihood ratio (PLR) and negative likelihood ratio (NLR) were 2.99 (95%CI, 1.84~4.88) and 0.25 (95%CI, 0.15~0.41), respectively. The pooled AUC and diagnostic odds ratios were 0.85 (95%CI, 0.82~0.88) and 12.20 (95% CI, 4.98~29.86), respectively.Conclusion: D-Dimer is a promising biomarker for the diagnosis of PJI, which should be used in conjunction with other biomarkers or as an adjunct to other diagnostic methods to enhance diagnostic performance.

scholarly journals Diagnostic accuracy of synovial fluid D-lactate for periprosthetic joint infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhizhuo Li ◽  
Chengxin Li ◽  
Guangxue Wang ◽  
Lijun Shi ◽  
Tengqi Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Synovial Fluid ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Periprosthetic Joint Infection ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Characteristic Curve ◽  
Joint Infection ◽  
Diagnostic Odds Ratio ◽  
Likelihood Ratios

Abstract Background Periprosthetic joint infection is a grievous complication after arthroplasty that greatly affects the quality of life of patients. Rapid establishment of infection diagnosis is essential, but great challenges still exist. Methods We conducted research in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of D-lactate for PJI. Data extraction and quality assessment were completed independently by two reviewers. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), summarized receiver operating characteristic curve (sROC), and area under the sROC curve (AUC) were constructed using the bivariate meta-analysis framework. Results Five eligible studies were included in the quantitative analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of D-lactate for the diagnosis of PJI were 0.82 (95% CI 0.70–0.89) and 0.76 (95% CI 0.69–0.82), respectively. The value of the pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of D-lactate for PJI was 14.18 (95% CI 6.17–32.58), and the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.84 (95% CI 0.80–0.87). Conclusions According to the results of our meta-analysis, D-lactate is a valuable synovial fluid marker for recognizing PJI, with high sensitivity and specificity.

scholarly journals Diagnostic accuracy of calprotectin in periprosthetic joint infection: a diagnostic meta-analysis

2022 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jisi Xing ◽  
Jiahao Li ◽  
Zijian Yan ◽  
Yijin Li ◽  
Xiaofang Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Periprosthetic Joint Infection ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Characteristic Curve ◽  
Joint Infection ◽  
Area Under The Curve ◽  
Positive Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Negative Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity

Abstract Background Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is considered to be one of the most challenging complications of joint replacement, which remains unpredictable. As a simple and emerging biomarker, calprotectin (CLP) has been considered to be useful in ruling out PJI in recent years. The purpose of this study was to investigate the accuracy and sensitivity of CLP in the diagnosis of PJI. Methods We searched and screened the publications from PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library from database establishment to June 2021. Subsequently, Stata version 16.0 software was used to combine the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), operating characteristic curve, and area under the curve (AUC). Heterogeneity across articles was evaluated by the I2 statistics. Finally, sources of heterogeneity were detected by subgroup analysis based on study design, detection method, sample size, and cutoff values. Results A total of 7 studies were included in our study, comprising 525 patients. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, and NLR of CLP for PJI diagnosis were 0.94(95% CI 0.87–0.98), 0.93(95% CI 0.87–0.96), 13.65(95% CI 6.89–27.08), and 0.06(95% CI 0.02–0.15), respectively, while the DOR and AUC were 222.33(95% CI 52.52–941.11) and 0.98 (95% CI 0.96–0.99), respectively. Conclusion Synovial CLP is a reliable biomarker and can be used as a diagnostic criterion for PJI in the future. However, the uncertainty resulting from the poor study numbers and sample sizes limit our ability to definitely draw conclusions on the basis of our study.

The effect of bearing surface on risk of periprosthetic joint infection in total hip arthroplasty

2018 ◽  
Vol 100-B (2) ◽  
pp. 134-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. T. Hexter ◽  
S. M. Hislop ◽  
G. W. Blunn ◽  
A. D. Liddle
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Periprosthetic Joint Infection ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Joint Infection ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Bearing Surface ◽  
Total Hip

Aims Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a serious complication of total hip arthroplasty (THA). Different bearing surface materials have different surface properties and it has been suggested that the choice of bearing surface may influence the risk of PJI after THA. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the rate of PJI between metal-on-polyethylene (MoP), ceramic-on-polyethylene (CoP), and ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) bearings. Patients and Methods Electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane library, Web of Science, and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature) were searched for comparative randomized and observational studies that reported the incidence of PJI for different bearing surfaces. Two investigators independently reviewed studies for eligibility, evaluated risk of bias, and performed data extraction. Meta-analysis was performed using the Mantel–Haenzel method and random-effects model in accordance with methods of the Cochrane group. Results Our search strategy revealed 2272 studies, of which 17 met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. These comprised 11 randomized controlled trials and six observational studies. The overall quality of included studies was high but the observational studies were at high risk of bias due to inadequate adjustment for confounding factors. The overall cumulative incidence of PJI across all studies was 0.78% (1514/193 378). For each bearing combination, the overall incidence was as follows: MoP 0.85% (1353/158 430); CoP 0.38% (67/17 489); and CoC 0.53% (94/17 459). The meta-analysis showed no significant difference between the three bearing combinations in terms of risk of PJI. Conclusion On the basis of the clinical studies available, there is no evidence that bearing choice influences the risk of PJI. Future research, including basic science studies and large, adequately controlled registry studies, may be helpful in determining whether implant materials play a role in determining the risk of PJI following arthroplasty surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:134–42.

scholarly journals The diagnostic effect of α-defensin, D-dimer, and IL-6 in periprosthetic joint infection: A systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 230949902097186
Author(s):  
Baozhong Tian ◽  
Liwen Cui ◽  
Weihai Jiang
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Periprosthetic Joint Infection ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Joint Infection ◽  
Common Complication ◽  
Online Databases ◽  
Artificial Joint Replacement ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity ◽  
D Dimer

Background: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is the most common complication after artificial joint replacement as previously reported. However, the main problem at present is its difficulty in diagnosis. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of α-defensin, D-dimer, and interleukin-6 (IL-6) in clinical practice. Method: Online databases were systematically searched until June 18th, 2020 with keywords and medical sub-headings terms. Studies mentioned the sensitivity and specificity of biological markers in detecting PJI were included in our study. The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) were obtained after integration. Results: A total of 34 studies with 1036 patients diagnosing as PJI were included for comparing α-defensin, D-dimer, and IL-6. The sensitivity and specificity of α-defensin for PJI were 0.88 and 0.96, and the DOR was 189 (95% CI 72–496), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of D-dimer (0.82 and 0.72) and IL-6 (0.80 and 0.89) were lower than α-defensin. Conclusion: The detection of α-defensin is a promising biomarker for diagnosing PJI. The optional cut-off needs to be curtained when using other biomarkers.

Performance of Serum Glypican 3 in Diagnosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (5) ◽  
pp. 0-10
Author(s):  
Dahai Xu ◽  
Chang Su ◽  
Liang Sun ◽  
Yuanyuan Gao ◽  
Youjun Li
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Operating Characteristic ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Characteristic Curve ◽  
Positive Control ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Non Invasive

Introduction and aim. Serum glypican-3 (GPC3) has been explored as a non-invasive biomarker of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, controversy remains on its diagnostic accuracy. Therefore, we aimed to conduct a systematic review and metaanalysis to evaluate the differential diagnostic accuracy of serum GPC3 between HCC and liver cirrhosis (LC) cases. Material and methods. After the strict filtering and screening of studies from NCBI, PUBMED, Clinical Trials, Cochrane library, Embase, Prospero and Web of Science databases, 11 studies were selected. All studies provided the sensitivity and specificity of GPC3 and the alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) in the HCC and LC diagnosis. The sensitivity and specificity, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were determined and compared between GPC3 and AFP, which was set as a positive control. Results. Pooled sensitivity (95% CI) and specificity (95% CI) were 0.55 (0.52-0.58) and 0.58 (0.54-0.61) for GPC3, 0.54 (0.51-0.57) and 0.83 (0.80-0.85) for AFP, and 0.85 (0.81-0.89) and 0.79 (0.73-0.84) for GPC3 + AFP, respectively. The AUCs of GPC3, AFP and GPC3 + AFP were 0.7793, 0.7867 and 0.9366, respectively. GPC3 had a nearly similar sensitivity as AFP, while the specificity and AUC of GPC3 was lower than that of AFP. The combination of GPC3 and AFP yielded a better sensitivity and AUC than GPC3 or AFP. Conclusion. Serum GPC3 is inferior to AFP in the differential diagnosis between HCC and LC. However, the combination of GPC3 and AFP exhibited a much better performance.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of diluted povidone-iodine lavage for preventing periprosthetic joint infection: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Naomi Kobayashi ◽  
Emi Kamono ◽  
Kento Maeda ◽  
Toshihiro Misumi ◽  
Yohei Yukizawa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Periprosthetic Joint Infection ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Povidone Iodine ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Joint Infection ◽  
Assessment Process ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Saline Control ◽  
Control Group

Abstract Background Of the several methods used to prevent surgical site infection (SSI), diluted povidone-iodine (PI) lavage is used widely. However, the clinical utility of PI for preventing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) remains controversial. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the utility of dilute PI lavage for preventing PJI in primary and revision surgery. Methods This study was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA checklist for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane Library databases was performed. The results are summarized qualitatively and as a meta-analysis of pooled odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Heterogeneity of treatment effects among studies was classified as low, moderate, or high, corresponding to I2 values of < 25%, 25–50%, and > 50%. A random effects model was applied in cases of high heterogeneity; otherwise, the fixed effects model was applied. Subgroup analyses were conducted to identify potential sources of heterogeneity. Results After the screening and eligibility assessment process, eight studies were finally extracted for analysis. Overall, the results showed that PI had no significant effect on PJI with ununified control group. However, subgroup analysis of studies with a saline control group revealed an odds ratio of 0.33 (95% CI, 0.16–0.71) for the PI group, suggesting a significant effect for preventing PJI. Conclusion The systematic review and meta-analysis of the current literature demonstrates that diluted PI lavage is significantly better than saline solution lavage for preventing PJI. Level of evidence Level I, Systematic review and meta-analysis.

scholarly journals Reliability of circulating fibrinogen in the diagnosis of prosthesis-related infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Xingyang Zhu ◽  
Haitao Zhang ◽  
Xiaobo Sun ◽  
Yijin Li ◽  
Jiahao Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Joint Infection ◽  
Area Under The Curve ◽  
Positive Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Negative Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Diagnostic Odds Ratio ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity

Abstract Background Fibrinogen (FIB) has recently been used as a biomarker to diagnose periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), but its reliability is still questionable. The aim of this study was to investigate the accuracy of FIB in the diagnosis of PJI after joint replacement. Methods We searched for literatures published in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from the time of database inception to September 2020 and screened the studies according to the inclusion criteria. Then, we calculated the diagnostic parameters of FIB, including the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), area under the curve (AUC), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). In addition, we implemented subgroup analyses to identify the sources of heterogeneity. Results Seven studies including 1341 patients were selected in our meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and DOR of FIB for PJI diagnosis were 0.78 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73–0.82), 0.83 (95% CI, 0.81–0.86), 4.60 (95% CI, 3.30–6.42), 0.24 (95% CI, 0.18–0.34), and 20.13 (95% CI, 14.80–27.36), respectively, while the AUC was 0.896. Conclusion The present study indicated that FIB was a reliable detection method and might be introduced into the diagnostic criteria for PJI. However, more robust studies are still needed to confirm the current findings, because most of the included studies were retrospective and had small sample sizes.

scholarly journals Accuracy of breath test for diabetes mellitus diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. e002174
Author(s):  
Wenting Wang ◽  
Wenzhao Zhou ◽  
Sheng Wang ◽  
Jinyu Huang ◽  
Yanna Le ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Breath Test ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Area Under The Curve ◽  
Analytical Techniques ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Breath Tests

The review aimed to investigate the accuracy of breath tests in the diagnosis of diabetes mellitus, identify exhaled volatile organic compounds with the most evidence as potential biomarkers, and summarize prospects and challenges in diabetic breath tests. Databases including Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Science Citation Index Expanded were searched. Human studies describing diabetic breath analysis with more than 10 subjects as controls and patients were included. Population demographics, breath test conditions, biomarkers, analytical techniques and diagnostic accuracy were extracted. Quality assessment was performed with the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy and a modified QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2). Forty-four research with 2699 patients with diabetes were included for qualitative data analysis and 14 eligible studies were used for meta-analysis. Pooled analysis of type 2 diabetes breath test exhibited sensitivity of 91.8% (95% CI 83.6% to 96.1%), specificity of 92.1% (95% CI 88.4% to 94.7%) and area under the curve (AUC) of 0.96 (95% CI 0.94 to 0.97). Isotopic carbon dioxide (CO2) showed the best diagnostic accuracy with pooled sensitivity of 0.949 (95% CI 0.870 to 0.981), specificity of 0.946 (95% CI 0.891 to 0.975) and AUC of 0.98 (95% CI 0.97 to 0.99). As the most widely reported biomarker, acetone showed moderate diagnostic accuracy with pooled sensitivity of 0.638 (95% CI 0.511 to 0.748), specificity of 0.801 (95% CI 0.691 to 0.878) and AUC of 0.79 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.82). Our results indicate that breath test is a promising approach with acceptable diagnostic accuracy for diabetes mellitus and isotopic CO2 is the optimal breath biomarker. Even so, further validation and standardization in subject control, breath sampling and analysis are still required.

The role of D-dimer in periprosthetic joint infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Diagnosis ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Giovanni Balato ◽  
Cristiano De Franco ◽  
Fiamma Balboni ◽  
Vincenzo De Matteo ◽  
Tiziana Ascione ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Blood Sample ◽  
Periprosthetic Joint Infection ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Joint Infection ◽  
Negative Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Diagnostic Odds Ratio ◽  
Receiver Operating Curve ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity ◽  
D Dimer

Abstract Objectives The current literature on diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) provides controversial evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of D-dimer. Therefore, this critical literature search and meta-analysis was aimed to summarize the diagnostic accuracy of D-dimer for diagnosing PJI. Content We searched MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science, for studies on D-dimer for diagnosing PJI, according to the PRISMA flowchart. QUADAS was used for assessing study quality. Sensitivity, specificity, positive (PLR) and negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were analyzed using bivariate diagnostic random-effects model. The area under the receiver-operating curve (AUC-ROC) was calculated. Subgroup analysis and univariate meta-regression were carried out for detecting potential sources of heterogeneity. Summary We included 12 articles, totaling 1,818 patients (539 with PJI). The pooled sensitivity and specificity of D-dimer for diagnosing PJI were 0.739 (95% CI: 0.616–0.833) and 0.785 (95% CI: 0.679–0.863). The pooled PLR, NLR, DOR were 3.359 (95% CI, 2.340–4.821), 0.295 (95% CI, 0.180–0.484), and 11.787 (95% CI, 5.785–24.018). The cumulative ROC plot displayed an AUC of 0.688 (95% CI, 0.663–0.713; p<0.001). No threshold effects could be observed. The type of blood sample was identified as possible source of heterogeneity for DOR (p=0.01). Outlook Evidence emerged from this meta-analysis suggests that D-dimer displays sufficient diagnostic accuracy to rule out PJI. The type of blood sample (plasma vs. serum) and the study design could influence the results in terms of DOR and sensitivity. However, further perspective studies would be needed to validate its potential diagnostic usefulness.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document