scholarly journals Meta-analysis of serum and/or plasma D-dimer in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Cheng Li ◽  
Donara Margaryan ◽  
Cristina Ojeda-Thies ◽  
Carsten Perka ◽  
Andrej Trampuz
Keyword(s):  
Periprosthetic Joint Infection ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Joint Infection ◽  
D Dimer

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.

scholarly journals Meta-analysis of serum and/or plasma D-dimer in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cheng Li ◽  
Donara Margaryan ◽  
Cristina Ojeda-Thies ◽  
Carsten Perka ◽  
Andrej Trampuz
Keyword(s):  
Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Periprosthetic Joint Infection ◽  
Degradation Products ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Joint Infection ◽  
Positive Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Negative Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Diagnostic Value ◽  
Medical Subject Headings ◽  
D Dimer

Abstract Background The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the diagnostic value of D-dimer in detecting periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Methods A systematic search and screen of relevant studies was performed in the PubMed, Web of Science and Embase databases using the following medical subject headings (MeSH) or keywords: “arthroplasty or joint prosthesis or joint replacement or periprosthetic joint or prosthetic joint”, “infection or infectious or infected”, and “D-dimer or serum D-dimer or plasma D-dimer or fibrin degradation products”. Then, the data were analysed and processed by Meta-Disc software. Results A total of 7 studies with 1285 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR) and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.70 to 0.79), 0.69 (95% CI: 0.66 to 0.72), 3.01 (95% CI: 1.84 to 4.93), 0.32 (95% CI: 0.19 to 0.53) and 10.20 (95% CI: 3.63 to 28.64), respectively. Subgroup analyses showed that use of serum D-dimer had better sensitivity and specificity than plasma D-dimer for the diagnosis of PJI (0.86, 0.84 vs. 0.67, 0.60, respectively). Conclusion Serum D-dimer had a better diagnostic value than plasma D-dimer for the diagnosis of PJI.

scholarly journals Meta-analysis of serum and/or plasma D-dimer in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cheng Li ◽  
Donara Margaryan ◽  
Cristina Ojeda-Thies ◽  
Carsten Perka ◽  
Andrej Trampuz
Keyword(s):  
Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Periprosthetic Joint Infection ◽  
Degradation Products ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Joint Infection ◽  
Positive Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Negative Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Diagnostic Value ◽  
Medical Subject Headings ◽  
D Dimer

Abstract Background The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the diagnostic value of D-dimer in detecting periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Methods A systematic search and screening of relevant studies was performed in the databases PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase using the following medical subject headings (MeSH) or keywords: “arthroplasty or joint prosthesis or joint replacement or periprosthetic joint or prosthetic joint”, “infection or infectious or infected”, and “D-dimer or serum D-dimer or plasma D-dimer or fibrin degradation products”. Data were subsequently analysed and processed using Meta-Disc. Results Seven studies with 1285 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio were 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.70–0.79), 0.69 (95% CI: 0.66–0.72), 3.01 (95% CI: 1.84–4.93), 0.32 (95% CI: 0.19–0.53), and 10.20 (95% CI: 3.63–28.64), respectively. Subgroup analyses showed that the use of serum D-dimer had better sensitivity and specificity than plasma D-dimer for the diagnosis of PJI . Conclusion Serum D-dimer was shown to have a better diagnostic value than plasma D-dimer for the diagnosis of PJI. Further research is required for clarification.

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.

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.

D-dimer for diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection: A meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiren Yan ◽  
Kai Xie ◽  
Xu Jiang ◽  
Xuequan Han ◽  
Liao Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Periprosthetic Joint Infection ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Joint Infection ◽  
D Dimer

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

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Haitao Zhang ◽  
Xiaobo Sun ◽  
Pengfei Xin ◽  
Xingyang Zhu ◽  
Ke Jie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Periprosthetic Joint Infection ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Joint Infection ◽  
D Dimer

scholarly journals Fibrinogen performs better than D-dimer for the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection: a meta-analysis of diagnostic trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Liping Pan ◽  
Hao Wu ◽  
Heng Liu ◽  
Xin Yang ◽  
Zhichao Meng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Periprosthetic Joint Infection ◽  
Diagnostic Performance ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Joint Infection ◽  
Negative Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity ◽  
D Dimer ◽  
Better Than

Abstract Purpose D-dimer and fibrinogen, both belonging to coagulation parameters, are controversial for the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). This meta-analysis was conducted to compare their diagnostic accuracies for PJI by synthesizing currently available evidence. Methods Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Embase up to March 1, 2020, and other relevant articles were searched. Five hundred and eighty-one articles were identified after initial research, and 11 studies were included finally. No threshold effects were found between studies. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratio were reported to evaluate the diagnostic performance with heterogeneity analysis. Z test statistics was used to analyze the difference of diagnostic performance between D-dimer and fibrinogen. Results The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratio of D-dimer for PJI were 0.79 (95% [CI], 0.72–0.85), 0.77 (0.67–0.84), 3.38 (2.21–5.18), and 0.27 (0.18–0.41), respectively. As for fibrinogen, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratio for PJI were 0.75 (0.68–0.80), 0.85 (0.82–0.88), 5.12 (4.22–6.22), and 0.30 (0.23–0.37), respectively. Great heterogeneity was found in studies for D-dimer, and univariate meta-regression analysis revealed that number of involved joints, disease spectrum, comorbidities influencing D-dimer, and sample sources were the source of heterogeneity. Z test found that the pooled specificity of fibrinogen was significantly higher than D-dimer (0.85 ± 0.01 versus 0.77 ± 0.04, p = 0.03). The pooled positive likelihood ratio of fibrinogen was significantly higher than D-dimer (5.12 ± 0.51 versus 3.38 ± 0.74, p = 0.03). Conclusion Based on currently available evidence, the meta-analysis suggests that fibrinogen performs better than D-dimer as a rule-in diagnostic tool for its higher specificity. However, more prospective trials with larger size are still needed to provide further confirmation. Trial registration This meta-analysis was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (International prospective register of systematic reviews), and the registering number was CRD42020177176.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document