ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2021
White Blood Cell Scintigraphy for Fracture-Related Infection: Is Semiquantitative Analysis of Equivocal Scans Accurate?
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWhite blood cell (WBC) scintigraphy is considered the gold-standard nuclear imaging technique for diagnosing fracture-related infection (FRI). Correct interpretation of WBC scans in FRI is important since a false positive or false negative diagnosis has major consequences for the patient in terms of clinical decision-making. The European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM) guideline for correct analysis and interpretation of WBC scans recommends semiquantitative analysis of visually equivocal scans. Therefore, this study aims to assess the diagnostic accuracy of semiquantitative analysis of visually equivocal WBC scans for diagnosing FRI.
methodsA retrospective single-center study was performed in consecutive patients who received WBC scintigraphy in the diagnostic work-up for FRI between February 2012 and January 2017. All the visually equivocal scans were analysed using semiquantitative analysis by comparing leukocyte uptake in the manually selected suspected infection focus with the contralateral bone marrow (L/R ratio). Cut-off points for a 'positive' scan result of >0%, >10% and >20% leukocyte increase between the early and late scans were used in separate analyses. The discriminative ability was quantified by calculating the sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy.
resultsIn total, 153 WBC scans were eligible for inclusion. After visual assessment of all the scans, 28 visually equivocal scans were included. Dichotomization of the ratios using the cut-off of >0% resulted in a sensitivity of 30%, a specificity of 45% and a diagnostic accuracy of 40%. The >10% cut-off point resulted in a sensitivity of 18%, a specificity of 82% and a diagnostic accuracy of 66%. The >20% cut-off point resulted in a sensitivity of 0%, a specificity of 89% and a diagnostic accuracy of 67%.
conclusionSemiquantitative analysis of visually equivocal WBC scans is insufficient for correctly diagnosing FRI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.