ArticleBMC infectious diseases2022
Evaluation of two different semi-automated homogenization techniques in microbiological diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection: disperser vs. bead milling method.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Optimized use and performance of culture for periprosthetic joint infection diagnosis: a comprehensive literature review.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Improved Microbiological Diagnosis of Bone and Joint Infections Using Mechanical Bead-Milling Extraction of Bone Specimens with the Ultra-TurraxDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Rapid high-throughput processing of tissue samples for microbiological diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infections using bead-beating homogenization.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn microbiological diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) there is no consensus regarding the most suitable and optimal number of specimens to be cultured or the most effective technique of tissue processing. This comparative study analysed the accuracy of two semi-automated homogenization methods with special focus on the volume and exact origin of each sample.
methodsWe investigated a total of 722 periprosthetic tissue samples. PJI was defined according to the new scoring system for preoperative and intraoperative criteria. We compared the performance of our routinely used single tissue processing by disposable high-frequency disperser with the bead milling method.
resultsEighty patients were included. Among forty classified PJIs, 34 patients yielded positive culture results. In 23 cases (68%) exact concordant results were generated with both techniques. However, in seven cases (20%) processing by the disperser and in four cases (12%) by bead milling provided additional positive samples, but without significant difference since the major definition criteria were met in all cases. The percentage of positive results was influenced by the volume and origin of the tissue samples. Results for small tissue samples tended to be better using the bead milling method. This might lead to improved preoperative arthroscopic diagnosis, as the volume of biopsies is generally limited. Six patients had negative results due to previous antimicrobial therapy. Forty other patients were classified as aseptic failures. Neither procedure resulted in any contamination.
conclusionBoth methods enable reliable processing of tissue samples for diagnosis of PJI and are suitable for routine use.
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.