Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36140435›Full record

ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Diagnostic Performance of Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio, Monocyte to Lymphocyte Ratio, Platelet to Lymphocyte Ratio, and Platelet to Mean Platelet Volume Ratio in Periprosthetic Hip and Knee Infections: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Enrico Festa, Tiziana Ascione, Alessio Bernasconi, Donato Di Gennaro, Morena Anna Basso, Amedeo Guarino, Giovanni Balato

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Enrico FestaOrthopedic Unit, Department of Public Health, Federico II University Naples, 80131 Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-9923-1129
Tiziana AscioneService of Infectious Disease, Department of Medicine, Cardarelli Hospital Naples, 80131 Naples, Italy.
Alessio BernasconiOrthopedic Unit, Department of Public Health, Federico II University Naples, 80131 Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-9427-3178
Donato Di GennaroOrthopedic Unit, Department of Public Health, Federico II University Naples, 80131 Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-7836-4267
Morena Anna BassoOrthopedic Unit, Department of Public Health, Federico II University Naples, 80131 Naples, Italy.
Amedeo GuarinoOrthopedic Unit, Department of Public Health, Federico II University Naples, 80131 Naples, Italy.
Giovanni BalatoOrthopedic Unit, Department of Public Health, Federico II University Naples, 80131 Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-0392-4511

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The current literature on the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection provides controversial evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of MLR, NLR, PVR, and PLR. Therefore, this critical literature search and meta-analysis was aimed to summarize the diagnostic accuracy of these biomarkers for the diagnosis of hip and knee prosthetic infection. According to the PRISMA flowchart, we searched MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science, for studies on these ratios for diagnosing PJI. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, and AUC were analyzed. We included 11 articles in our meta-analysis, including 7537 patients who underwent total hip and knee arthroplasties; among these, 1974 (26%) patients reported a joint infection. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.72 and 0.74, respectively, for NLR, 0.72 and 0.77 for PVR, and 0.77 and 0.75 for PLR. The sensitivity of MLR ranges from 0.54 to 0.81, while the specificity ranges from 0.78 to 0.81. Regarding the evaluation of AUCs, the best diagnostic performance was achieved by MLR (AUC = 0.77) followed by PLR (AUC = 0.75), NLR (AUC = 0.73), and PVR (AUC = 0.70). This meta-analysis demonstrates a fair diagnostic accuracy of these ratios, thus not being useful as a screening tool.

Indexed as

diagnosismonocytes-to-lymphocytes rationeutrophils-to-lymphocytes ratioperiprosthetic joint infectionplatelets-to-lymphocytes ratioplatelets-to-medium platelet volume ratiototal knee arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID36140435
PMCPMC9497749

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.