ArticleInternational orthopaedics2022
Simultaneous
Article in International orthopaedics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Combined use of 18 F-FDG PET/CT and MRI for evaluating infection status and clinical outcomes before reimplantation in two-stage revision arthroplasty.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Article
- [American journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Review
- Article
- Application of Nuclear Medicine Techniques in Musculoskeletal Infection: Current Trends and Future Prospects.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Imaging of knee osteoarthritis: a review of multimodal diagnostic approach.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Review
- Positron Emission Tomography-Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Assessments in a Mouse Model of Implant-Related Bone and Joint Staphylococcus aureus Infection.Microbiology spectrum · 2023Article
- Advanced Imaging for Detection of Foci of Infection in Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia- Can a Scan Save Lives?Seminars in nuclear medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study investigated the diagnostic value of simultaneous
methodsSixteen prostheses from 13 patients with suspected PJI were prospectively examined using PET/MRI. Image datasets were evaluated in consensus by a radiologist and a nuclear physician for the overall diagnosis of 'PJI' (yes/no) and its anatomical involvement, such as the periprosthetic bone margin, bone marrow, and soft tissue. The imaging results were compared with the reference standard obtained from surgical or biopsy specimens and subjected to statistical analysis.
resultsUsing the reference standard, ten out of the 13 prostheses (ten hips, threes knees) were diagnosed with PJI. Using PET/MRI, every patient with PJI was correctly diagnosed (sensitivity, 100%; specificity, 100%). Considering the anatomical regions, the sensitivity and specificity were 57% and 50% in the periprosthetic bone margin, 75% and 33% in the bone marrow, and 100% and 100% in the soft tissue.
conclusionPET/MRI can be reliably used for the diagnosis of PJI. However, assessment of the periprosthetic bone remains difficult due to the presence of artefacts. Thus, currently, this modality is unlikely to be recommended in clinical practice.
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.