ArticleJB & JS open access
Rapid and Accurate Diagnosis of Joint Infections: Potential Clinical Effect of the BioFire Joint Infection Panel.
Article in JB & JS open access. 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.
- Clinical characteristics of culture-negative periprosthetic joint infections: findings from an international periprosthetic joint infection registry.Journal of bone and joint infection · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Septic arthritis remains difficult to diagnose due to the low sensitivity of culture-based methods, particularly after antibiotic exposure or in the presence of fastidious organisms. The BioFire Joint Infection (JI) Panel is a multiplex polymerase chain reaction assay that detects 31 pathogens and 8 resistance genes, offering improved diagnostic performance. Methods: Synovial fluid samples from 154 patients at 4 tertiary hospitals in Korea (November 2022-August 2024) were retrospectively analyzed using the JI panel. Results were compared with synovial fluid culture for pathogen detection, diagnostic sensitivity, and potential impact on antimicrobial decision making, assuming panel results had been available at the time of treatment. Results: Among 154 patients, 67 had JIs (16 native and 51 prosthetic), and 32 were culture-confirmed. The JI panel identified pathogens in 43.8% of native and 37.3% of prosthetic JIs. For on-panel organisms, it showed 96.2% sensitivity and 100% specificity, improving detection by 34.6%. It also detected 9 pathogens missed by culture and could have reduced the time of identification by ∼73 hours. Antibiotic adjustments would have been potentially applicable in over 70% of JI panel-positive cases. De-escalation or discontinuation of broad-spectrum antibiotics could have reduced exposure by more than 80 hours. Escalation or initiation of targeted therapy could have occurred in 27% of the cases, enabling treatment 70 hours earlier than actual antibiotic modification, particularly in Gram-negative infections. Conclusion: The JI panel showed high concordance with culture-positive cases and identified additional pathogens in culture-negative samples. Its rapid turnaround time and improved detection support antimicrobial stewardship by enabling earlier, targeted therapy. However, its utility is limited by fixed coverage and exclusion of off-panel pathogens. Level of Evidence: Diagnostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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.