Meta-analysis of serum and/or plasma D-dimer in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection.
D-dimer
Diagnostic test
Meta-analysis
Periprosthetic joint infection
Plasma
Serum
Journal
Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research
ISSN: 1749-799X
Titre abrégé: J Orthop Surg Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101265112
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 Aug 2020
06 Aug 2020
Historique:
received:
15
01
2020
accepted:
21
07
2020
entrez:
9
8
2020
pubmed:
9
8
2020
medline:
21
4
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the diagnostic value of D-dimer in detecting periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). A systematic search and screening of relevant studies was performed in the databases PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase using the following medical subject headings (MeSH) or keywords: "arthroplasty or joint prosthesis or joint replacement or periprosthetic joint or prosthetic joint", "infection or infectious or infected", and "D-dimer or serum D-dimer or plasma D-dimer or fibrin degradation products". Data were subsequently analysed and processed using Meta-Disc. Seven studies with 1285 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio were 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-0.79), 0.69 (95% CI 0.66-0.72), 3.01 (95% CI 1.84-4.93), 0.32 (95% CI 0.19-0.53), and 10.20 (95% CI 3.63-28.64), respectively. Subgroup analyses showed that the use of serum D-dimer had better sensitivity and specificity than plasma D-dimer for the diagnosis of PJI. Serum D-dimer was shown to have a better diagnostic value than plasma D-dimer for the diagnosis of PJI. Further research is required for clarification.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the diagnostic value of D-dimer in detecting periprosthetic joint infection (PJI).
METHODS
METHODS
A systematic search and screening of relevant studies was performed in the databases PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase using the following medical subject headings (MeSH) or keywords: "arthroplasty or joint prosthesis or joint replacement or periprosthetic joint or prosthetic joint", "infection or infectious or infected", and "D-dimer or serum D-dimer or plasma D-dimer or fibrin degradation products". Data were subsequently analysed and processed using Meta-Disc.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Seven studies with 1285 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio were 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-0.79), 0.69 (95% CI 0.66-0.72), 3.01 (95% CI 1.84-4.93), 0.32 (95% CI 0.19-0.53), and 10.20 (95% CI 3.63-28.64), respectively. Subgroup analyses showed that the use of serum D-dimer had better sensitivity and specificity than plasma D-dimer for the diagnosis of PJI.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Serum D-dimer was shown to have a better diagnostic value than plasma D-dimer for the diagnosis of PJI. Further research is required for clarification.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32762703
doi: 10.1186/s13018-020-01808-1
pii: 10.1186/s13018-020-01808-1
pmc: PMC7409706
doi:
Substances chimiques
Fibrin Fibrinogen Degradation Products
0
fibrin fragment D
0
C-Reactive Protein
9007-41-4
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
298Subventions
Organisme : PRO-IMPLANT Foundation Berlin, Germany
ID : N/A
Références
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 Sep;24(9):1421-6
pubmed: 26279499
J Bone Jt Infect. 2018 Dec 4;3(5):258-259
pubmed: 30662817
J Arthroplasty. 2018 May;33(5):1309-1314.e2
pubmed: 29551303
Ann Intern Med. 2011 Oct 18;155(8):529-36
pubmed: 22007046
J Arthroplasty. 2014 Jul;29(7):1331
pubmed: 24768547
Int Orthop. 2017 Jul;41(7):1315-1319
pubmed: 28321490
Ann Vasc Surg. 2015;29(4):675-81
pubmed: 25728333
Int Orthop. 2011 Nov;35(11):1621-6
pubmed: 21181540
Hip Pelvis. 2018 Sep;30(3):138-146
pubmed: 30202747
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017 Dec 20;99(24):2077-2084
pubmed: 29257013
Bone Joint J. 2018 Nov;100-B(11):1482-1486
pubmed: 30418061
J Bone Jt Infect. 2018 Dec 24;3(5):273-279
pubmed: 30662820
J Arthroplasty. 2019 Jun;34(6):1197-1200
pubmed: 30837099
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019 Jun 22;20(1):299
pubmed: 31228938
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2009 Jul;129(7):887-94
pubmed: 18825397
J Orthop Surg Res. 2018 Feb 13;13(1):36
pubmed: 29439725
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006 Jul 12;6:31
pubmed: 16836745
N Engl J Med. 2004 Oct 14;351(16):1645-54
pubmed: 15483283
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017 Sep 6;99(17):1419-1427
pubmed: 28872523
J Arthroplasty. 2019 Oct;34(10):2454-2460
pubmed: 31155460
Int Orthop. 2020 Jan;44(1):3-14
pubmed: 31641803
J Orthop Surg Res. 2019 Jul 29;14(1):240
pubmed: 31358018
J Emerg Med. 2010 Jul;39(1):76-82
pubmed: 19062223
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010 Sep 1;92(11):2102-9
pubmed: 20810860
Arthroplast Today. 2017 Feb 04;3(3):183-186
pubmed: 28913404
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009 Jul;467(7):1699-705
pubmed: 19241115
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2000 Nov;55(11):M649-57
pubmed: 11078094
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Jul;473(7):2244-9
pubmed: 25604877
Bone Joint Res. 2018 Jan;7(1):85-93
pubmed: 29363518
J Orthop Surg Res. 2019 May 14;14(1):133
pubmed: 31088508
J Orthop Surg Res. 2019 Nov 29;14(1):407
pubmed: 31783874
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019 Apr 3;101(7):613-619
pubmed: 30946195
J Arthroplasty. 2016 Sep;31(9):1997-2003
pubmed: 26994651
J Arthroplasty. 2019 Feb;34(2S):S325-S327
pubmed: 30343971
J Vet Intern Med. 2011 Sep-Oct;25(5):1113-7
pubmed: 21781162
Clin Infect Dis. 2013 Jan;56(1):e1-e25
pubmed: 23223583
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011 Nov;469(11):2992-4
pubmed: 21938532
J Arthroplasty. 2020 Jan;35(1):229-234
pubmed: 31526698