ArticleJSES international2026
Diagnostics of shoulder periprosthetic joint infections: a global survey.
Article in JSES international, 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.
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
Background: Diagnosing shoulder periprosthetic joint infections is challenging. Several diagnostic tests are available, but their predictive value varies and is often poor. The aims of this study were to assess internationally how shoulder surgeons diagnose periprosthetic joint infections, and to investigate if there are intercollegiate and intercontinental differences. Methods: An online survey was designed for shoulder surgeons, incorporating questions regarding their utilization of various diagnostic tests and their level of professional experience. The survey was sent digitally to all members of the European Society for Surgery of the Shoulder and the Elbow, all European National Delegates, and 10 other Shoulder and Elbow societies worldwide. Results: Two hundred thirty-nine surveys were included in this study. The majority of the respondents (≥65%) routinely use at least 9 of different diagnostic tests as a workup for a shoulder periprosthetic joint infections: blood testing (C-reactive protein, white blood cell count, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate), pre-revision synovial fluid aspiration (culture, white blood cell count and neutrophil percentage), intraoperative synovial fluid aspiration (culture), pre-revision tissue biopsy for culture, and tissue biopsy for culture during revision surgery. Significantly more cultures were taken by respondents who perform fewer revisions ( Conclusion: The majority of those who responded to the survey use at least 9 different tests to diagnose shoulder periprosthetic joint infections. Respondents who perform fewer revisions take more cultures, and are less likely to rely solely on these results, compared to surgeons who perform more revisions. There are several intercontinental differences in the use of diagnostic tests (within Europe and beyond).
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.