Observational studyActa orthopaedica2024
Enhancing the data capture of periprosthetic joint infections in the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Registry: validity assessment and incidence estimation.
Observational study in Acta orthopaedica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Validation of periprosthetic joint infection after total knee arthroplasty: a cohort study on 423 cases from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register.Acta orthopaedica · 2026Article
- Similar incidence and implant survival of multiply revised knee arthroplasties in Norway and Denmark: a register study of the Danish and Norwegian Knee Arthroplasty registries from 1998-2021.Acta orthopaedica · 2026Observational
- Association of socioeconomic inequality and risk of periprosthetic joint infection after total knee arthroplasty: a Danish cohort study of 75,141 cases.Acta orthopaedica · 2025Article
- The downstream risk of multiple revisions following a prior TKA revision due to infection is higher compared to an aseptic TKA revision: A nationwide register study.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Cause of death following revision for periprosthetic joint infection or major aseptic revision in total hip and knee arthroplasty.Journal of bone and joint infection · 2025Article
- Effect of motor imagery training on joint function recovery following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- Review
- Antibiotic-Loaded Bone Cement and Risk of Infection After Knee Arthroplasty in High-Risk Patients: A Register Based Meta-Analysis.JB & JS open accessArticle
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeRevisions due to periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) are underestimated in national arthroplasty registries. Our primary objective was to assess the validity in the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Register (DKR) of revisions performed due to PJI against the Healthcare-Associated Infections Database (HAIBA). The secondary aim was to describe the cumulative incidences of revision due to PJI within 1 year of primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) according to the DKR, HAIBA, and DKR/HAIBA combined.
methodsThis longitudinal observational cohort study included 56,305 primary TKAs (2010-2018), reported in both the DKR and HAIBA. In the DKR, revision performed due to PJI was based on pre- and intraoperative assessment disclosed by the surgeon immediately after surgery. In HAIBA, PJI was identified from knee-related revision procedures coinciding with 2 biopsies with identical microbiological pathogens. We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of revision due to PJI in the DKR (vs. HAIBA, within 1 year of TKA) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Cumulative incidences were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method.
resultsThe DKR's sensitivity for PJI revision was 58% (CI 53-62) and varied by TKA year (41%-68%) and prosthetic type (31% for monoblock; 63% for modular). The specificity was 99.8% (CI 99.7-99.8), PPV 64% (CI 62-72), and NPV 99.6% (CI 99.6-99.7). 80% of PJI cases not captured by the DKR were caused by non-reporting rather than misclassification. 33% of PJI cases in the DKR or HAIBA were culture-negative. Considering potential misclassifications, the best-case sensitivity was 64%. The cumulative incidences of PJI were 0.8% in the DKR, 0.9% in HAIBA, and 1.1% when combining data.
conclusionThe sensitivity of revision due to PJI in the DKR was 58%. The cumulative incidence of PJI within 1 year after TKA was highest (1.1%) when combining the DKR and HAIBA, showing that incorporating microbiology data into arthroplasty registries can enhance PJI validity.
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.