ArticleInternational orthopaedics2015
Identification of the same species in at least two intra-operative samples for prosthetic joint infection diagnostics yields the best results with broad-range polymerase chain reaction.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Optimized use and performance of culture for periprosthetic joint infection diagnosis: a comprehensive literature review.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Evaluation and interpretation of prosthetic joint infection diagnostic investigations.International orthopaedics · 2021Review
- Propidium monoazide-polymerase chain reaction for detection of residual periprosthetic joint infection in two-stage revision.Molecular biology reports · 2019Article
- Detection of bacteria with molecular methods in prosthetic joint infection: sonication fluid better than periprosthetic tissue.Acta orthopaedica · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeProsthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication of total joint arthroplasty. No single laboratory test has perfect sensitivity and specificity; however, culture of periprosthetic tissue is the standard method for PJI diagnosis. Interpretation of positive culture results in PJI diagnostics can be difficult due to the possibility of contamination with microorganisms originating from skin micro flora. Criteria have been established to aid in distinguishing pathogen from contaminant for culture results. A similar criterion has not however been established for polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis, which is in part responsible for confusion about the reliability of PCR for PJI diagnostics. The aim of our study was to establish a criterion for interpretation of broad range (BR) PCR results in PJI diagnostics.
methodsSamples of periprosthetic tissue were retrieved from 100 patients with joint prosthesis failure and analysed with BR-PCR. The results of BR-PCR were evaluated based on the number of samples of periprosthetic tissue with the same bacterial species.
resultsThe sensitivity (87.5%) of BR-PCR was highest if the same species was present in at least one sample, although this criterion also resulted in the lowest specificity (92.1%). The sensitivity decreased (83.2%), although without a statistically significant difference, if the same species was present in two or more samples but, at the same time, specificity increased (100%), with a statistically significant difference.
conclusionsFor diagnostics of PJI with BR-PCR the criterion of the same bacterial species in at least two specimens of periprosthetic tissue from the same patient should be used for interpretation of positive results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25326855What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.