Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29270861›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2018

Evaluation of the use of sonication of retrieved implants for the diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection in a routine setting.

Laura Prieto-Borja, Álvaro Auñón, Antonio Blanco, Ricardo Fernández-Roblas, Ignacio Gadea, Joaquín García-Cañete, Raúl Parrón, Jaime Esteban

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Laura Prieto-BorjaDepartment of Clinical Microbiology, IIS-Fundación Jiménez Díaz, Av. Reyes Católicos 2, 28040, Madrid, Spain.
Álvaro AuñónDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, IIS-Fundación Jiménez Díaz, Madrid, Spain.
Antonio BlancoDepartment of Internal Medicine-Emergencies, IIS-Fundación Jiménez Díaz, Madrid, Spain.
Ricardo Fernández-RoblasDepartment of Clinical Microbiology, IIS-Fundación Jiménez Díaz, Av. Reyes Católicos 2, 28040, Madrid, Spain.
Ignacio GadeaDepartment of Clinical Microbiology, IIS-Fundación Jiménez Díaz, Av. Reyes Católicos 2, 28040, Madrid, Spain.
Joaquín García-CañeteDepartment of Internal Medicine-Emergencies, IIS-Fundación Jiménez Díaz, Madrid, Spain.
Raúl ParrónDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, IIS-Fundación Jiménez Díaz, Madrid, Spain.
Jaime EstebanDepartment of Clinical Microbiology, IIS-Fundación Jiménez Díaz, Av. Reyes Católicos 2, 28040, Madrid, Spain. jestebanmoreno@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8971-3167
Hospital Universitario Fundación Jiménez Díaz · ES

Funding

Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas MAT2013-48224-C2-2-R
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In order to evaluate the usefulness of sonication of retrieved implants for the diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) in a large group of patients in a routine setting, we designed a 3-year retrospective study. Patients were classified into two groups: those meeting the clinical criteria of PJI and those that did not (control group). Two hundred patients and 276 samples were included. The types of infection were early (n = 44), delayed (n = 53), positive intraoperative cultures (n = 13) and late-acute (n = 8). The culture sensitivities of sonicate fluid, periprosthetic tissue, synovial fluid and combination of periprosthetic tissue and/or synovial fluid were 69.5, 52.8, 54.8 and 60.2%, respectively. The specificities were 97.6, 90.3, 93.0 and 89.9%, respectively. Sonicate fluid culture of implants was more sensitive than peri-implant tissue, synovial fluid and combination of periprosthetic tissue and/or synovial fluid for all infection types, though it was especially useful in delayed infection: 91.3% vs. 60.0% (p = 0.0015), 63.2% (p = 0.0005) and 66.7% (p = 0.0001), respectively. When sonicate fluid culture of implants was performed in addition to conventional cultures, the sensitivity increased significantly in total (from 60.2 to 77.1%) and delayed PJI (from 45.1 to 71.7%). On the other hand, for early PJI, sonicate fluid culture of prosthesis was not superior to conventional diagnostic methods.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overBacteriological TechniquesFemaleHumansJoint ProsthesisMaleMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsProsthesis-Related InfectionsRetrospective StudiesSonicationSynovial FluidYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID29270861
OpenAlexW2776325852

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.