α-defensin is a biomarker which has been described as having a high degree of accuracy in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Current meta-analyses are based on the α-defensin laboratory-based immunoassay rather than the quick on-table lateral flow test kit. This study is the first meta-analysis to compare the accuracy of the α-defensin laboratory-based immunoassay and the lateral flow test kit for the diagnosis of PJI.
A systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Inclusion criteria were all clinical studies where the diagnosis of PJI was uncertain. All studies selected used the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) or modified MSIS criteria. Two independent reviewers reviewed the studies and extracted data. A meta-analysis of results was carried out: pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio, heterogeneity and areas under curves are reported.
Ten studies (759 patients) were included. Of these, seven studies (640 patients) evaluated the laboratory-based α-defensin immunoassay and three (119 patients) the lateral flow test. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of the qualitative α-defensin laboratory immunoassay was 0.953 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 0.984) and 0.965 (95% CI 0.943 to 0.979) respectively. The pooled positive likelihood ratio (PLR) and negative likelihood ratio (NLR) were 34.86 (95% CI 19.34 to 62.85) and 0.02 (95% CI 0.00 to 0.11). The pooled sensitivity and specificity of the lateral flow test were 0.774 (95% CI 0.637 to 0.870) and 0.913 (95% CI 0.828 to 0.958), respectively. The pooled PLR and NLR were 8.675 (95% CI 4.229 to 17.794) and 0.248 (95% CI 0.147 to 0.418), respectively.
The pooled sensitivity and specificity of the lateral flow test were lower than those of the α-defensin laboratory-based immunoassay test. Hence, care must be taken with interpretation of the lateral flow test when relying on its results for the intra-operative diagnosis of PJI. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:66-72.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 March 2021.
All research outputs
#1,777,260
of 34,411,289 outputs
Outputs from The Bone & Joint Journal
#266
of 5,771 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,686
of 496,331 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Bone & Joint Journal
#8
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,411,289 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,771 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 496,331 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
