SynthesisKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2026
Comparative diagnostic accuracy of next-generation sequencing in different specimen types for periprosthetic joint infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDiscrepancies in next-generation sequencing (NGS) results across synovial fluid, periprosthetic tissues and implant sonicate fluid pose a significant clinical challenge in diagnosing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic accuracy of these NGS sample types for PJI.
methodsThis study adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library databases from inception to 1 June 2025. Two independent reviewers performed data extraction and assessed study quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. For each specimen type, we estimated the pooled sensitivity and specificity, summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve and the area under the SROC curve (AUC).
resultsFollowing screening, 18 studies were included. Pooled sensitivities of NGS for PJI diagnosis were as follows: synovial fluid 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79-0.91), periprosthetic tissue 0.86 (95% CI: 0.69-0.95) and sonicate fluid 0.89 (95% CI: 0.77-0.95). Corresponding specificities were 0.94 (95% CI: 0.91-0.96), 0.98 (95% CI: 0.85-1.00) and 0.96 (95% CI: 0.91-0.98). AUCs were 0.93 (0.89-0.95), 0.96 (0.88-0.97) and 0.96 (0.88-0.97), respectively. Pairwise comparisons of AUCs showed no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05).
conclusionsThis meta-analysis suggests that NGS of sonicate fluid demonstrates higher sensitivity compared to NGS of synovial fluid or periprosthetic tissue, while maintaining strong specificity, making it valuable for detecting infection. Periprosthetic tissue NGS demonstrated exceptional specificity and acceptable sensitivity, making it valuable for confirming infection. All specimens show clinically useful AUC values. Sonicate fluid shows promise, but specimen selection warrants careful consideration of the sensitivity-specificity trade-off in clinical practice and requires validation of clinical utility due to the absence of a perfect PJI diagnostic gold standard and the risk of false positives. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.
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.