Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32666142›Full record

ArticleDer Orthopade2021

[Diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection : Development of an evidence-based algorithm by the work group of implant-associated infection of the AE-(German Society for Arthroplasty)].

H Mühlhofer, N Renz, A Zahar, M Lüdemann, M Rudert, R Hube, L Frommelt, R Ascherl, C Perka, R von Eisenhart-Rothe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Der Orthopade, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. [Arthroplasty and oral health-an overview].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024
    Review
  4. Review
  5. [Structured approach for infected prosthesis].Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie · 2023
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Synovial fluid pH is as specific as synovial leukocyte count but less sensitive for the diagnosis of chronic prosthetic joint infection.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

10 authors.

H MühlhoferKlinik und Poliklinik für Orthopädie und Sportorthopädie, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, München, Deutschland. heinrich.muehlhofer@tum.de.
N RenzCentrum für Muskuloskeletale Chirurgie, Campus Charité Mitte, Charite, Luisenstraße 64, 10117, Berlin, Deutschland.
A ZaharHelios Klinikum Emil von Behring, Walterhöferstr. 11, 14165, Berlin, Deutschland.
M LüdemannOrthopädische Klinik, König-Ludwig-Haus, Brettreichstraße 11, 97074, Würzburg, Deutschland.
M RudertOrthopädische Klinik, König-Ludwig-Haus, Brettreichstraße 11, 97074, Würzburg, Deutschland.
R HubeOrthopädische Chirurgie München, OCM Klinik München, Steinerstr. 6, 81369, München, Deutschland.
L FrommeltHelios ENDO-Klinik Hamburg, Holstenstraße 2, 22767, Hamburg, Deutschland.
R Ascherl, Kirchham, Deutschland.
C PerkaCentrum für Muskuloskeletale Chirurgie, Campus Charité Mitte, Charite, Luisenstraße 64, 10117, Berlin, Deutschland.
R von Eisenhart-RotheKlinik und Poliklinik für Orthopädie und Sportorthopädie, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, München, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProsthetic joint infections (PPI) will challenge orthopaedic surgeons and the health care system in the coming years. Evidence-based and reliable preoperative diagnostics are necessary for success in the field of revision arthroplasty. Especially the preoperative detection of PPI is important with respect to the treatment strategy.

aimThe aim of this study was to develop a detailed and structured standard operating procedure (SOP) to detect PPI preoperatively.

methodsA systematic literature research was performed and relevant articles identified. After extracting the data, statistical calculations of sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative predictive value and positive/negative likelihood ratio were performed. The results were discussed and evaluated in four meetings analogously to standard Delphi rounds by the workgroup of implant-associated infections of the German AE (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Endoprothetik). An algorithm for the diagnostic approach according to ISO 5807 was made.

resultsThe standardized algorithm combines a sequence of evidence-based procedures with detailed and structured main and additional criteria to every critical step in the diagnostic approach.

conclusionThe detection of PPI is of tremendous importance prior to revision arthroplasty and determines its success or failure. The diagnosis "prosthetic joint infection" requires a substantial change with respect to treatment concepts. The algorithm summarizes current literature and specialized expert opinions in a modern standardized format for a transparent diagnostic approach.

Indexed as

Arthritis, InfectiousArthroplasty, Replacement, HipProsthesis-Related InfectionsAlgorithmsArthroplastyHumansPredictive Value of TestsReoperationBiofilmJoint prosthesisProsthesis-related infectionsSensitivity and specificitySurgical diagnostic technic

Identifiers

PMID32666142
PMCPMC7990870

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.