ReviewCureus2024
Analysis of Serum and Synovial Inflammatory Markers in Periprosthetic Joint Infections: A Narrative Review.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Inflammatory Biomarkers Following Orthopedic Surgery: Current Evidence, Clinical Applications, and Future Perspectives-A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Diagnostic accuracy of serum and synovial biomarker thresholds for diagnosing periprosthetic joint infection: a QUADAS-C-guided systematic review and meta-analysis.Arthroplasty (London, England) · 2026Review
- The diagnostic accuracy of serum and synovial inflammatory markers in chronic periprosthetic joint infection among anaemic patients.Bone & joint research · 2026Article
- [Diagnostic value ofZhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2025Article
- Single-Stage Revision for Treatment of Prosthetic Joint Infection in Total Hip Arthroplasty.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is considered a rare but devastating complication after total joint arthroplasty (TJA). The problem lies in the fact that there is a paucity of "gold standard" diagnostic tests that make the diagnosis of PJI extremely challenging. Recently, there have been increasing evidence-based guidelines that have been introduced to standardise the approach to a patient with a suspected PJI. Diagnosing a case of PJI traditionally involves initial screening for elevated serum inflammation markers C-reactive protein (CRP) (mg/dL) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and aspiration remains the sole confirmatory investigation. However, several factors would affect the values of the aforementioned markers, such as gender, age, and the presence of inflammatory circumstances. Serum D-dimer that detects fibrinolytic activities during infection has high sensitivity, but the specificity was not persuasive as it would elevate during other conditions, such as venous thromboembolism. Therefore, there is also a need for a simultaneous and secondary marker. There are also several synovial biomarkers, including ESR, CRP, alpha-defensin, and synovial fluid leukocyte count and differential for the detection of PJI. In this narrative review, we want to sum up the serum and inflammatory markers that have been introduced so far for detecting PJI.
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.