ArticleCureus2025
Evaluating the Diagnostic Performance of a Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction Panel for the Detection of Synovial Fluid Pathogens in the Setting of Periprosthetic Joint Infection.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background This prospective study assessed the performance of a commercial multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) panel in diagnosing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Methods Synovial fluid samples from hip and knee arthroplasties, submitted to a clinical diagnostic laboratory for PJI workup, were tested with multiplex PCR to identify a specific panel of organisms. Clinical biomarker test results and microbiological culture were used to classify samples as 'not infected', 'inconclusive', and 'infected' using a modified 2018 International Consensus Meeting (ICM) criteria for PJI. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the specificity, the on- and off-panel sensitivity, and the clinical utility of the multiplex PCR panel for diagnosing PJI. Results The multiplex PCR panel demonstrated 100% specificity (55/55 samples; 95% CI: 94%-100%) with no false-positive cases. Sensitivity was 96% (95% CI: 89%-99%) for the infected samples (85/89 samples), yielding microorganisms included as targets in the PCR panel. For all culture-positive samples classified as infected, including off-panel organisms, the sensitivity of the multiplex PCR panel for pathogen identification was 58% (87/150 samples; 95% CI: 50%-66%). The panel identified microorganisms in 18% (9/50) of the culture-negative samples classified as infected and in 2% (1/50) of culture-negative samples classified as inconclusive. Conclusion The multiplex PCR panel assessed in this study demonstrated excellent specificity, with a negligible false-positive rate, yet still identified organisms in the setting of culture-negative infection. Sensitivity for organisms included on the multiplex panel was also excellent. Clinicians must be aware that the panel will yield negative results in the setting of organisms which are not on the panel, such as
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.