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

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.

Download Full-text

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

10.21203/rs.3.rs-29766/v1 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

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

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery ◽

10.1177/2309499020971861 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

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

10.21203/rs.2.21286/v1 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

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

10.21203/rs.2.21286/v2 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

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

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research ◽

10.1186/s13018-020-01808-1 ◽

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

Download Full-text

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

BioMed Research International ◽

10.1155/2020/3704285 ◽

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.

Download Full-text