SynthesisFrontiers in surgery2026
Diagnostic value of D-dimer in screening for deep vein thrombosis after total joint arthroplasty: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in surgery, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is a common and serious complication following total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Although plasma D-dimer is widely used to exclude thrombotic events, its diagnostic accuracy in postoperative populations remains controversial due to nonspecific elevation caused by surgical trauma. This meta-analysis aimed to systematically evaluate the diagnostic performance of D-dimer for screening DVT after total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, Wiley Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data, and VIP databases were searched from inception to November 2025 for studies that investigated the diagnostic accuracy of D-dimer for detecting DVT after TJA. Study quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. A bivariate mixed-effects model was applied to pool sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). Summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves were constructed and the area under the curve (AUC) was calculated using Stata version 14.0. Results: A total of 11 studies involving 7,123 patients were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of D-dimer for diagnosing postoperative DVT after TJA were 0.76 (95% CI: 0.64-0.85) and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.55-0.97), respectively. The pooled PLR was 5.24 (95% CI: 1.30-21.08), the NLR was 0.28 (95% CI: 0.16-0.49), and the DOR was 18.59 (95% CI: 2.94-117.42). The AUC of the SROC curve was 0.83 (95% CI: 0.80-0.86). Substantial heterogeneity was observed among studies (I Conclusions: D-dimer demonstrates moderate diagnostic potential for screening DVT after TJA, with its primary value lying in ruling out DVT when results are negative. However, the current pooled estimates do not support a uniform diagnostic threshold or the use of D-dimer as a standalone diagnostic tool. Given the substantial heterogeneity across studies and the variability in specificity due to postoperative physiological elevation, the test should only be considered as part of a risk-stratified screening strategy, ideally in combination with clinical risk assessment models or using procedure- and context-specific cutoff values. Further prospective studies are needed to validate such integrated approaches before clinical implementation.
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.