D-dimer in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research

Shujin Liu¹  Guangxu Lu¹  Haoqi Ye¹  Tong Li²  Wenliang Wang²  Peng Zhang² 

[1] Department of Logistics University of PAP;Department of Orthopedics, Characteristic Medical Center of PAP;

关键词: Periprosthetic joint infection;    D-dimer;    Arthroplasty;    Diagnosis;    Meta-analysis;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s13018-020-01761-z

来源: DOAJ

【 摘 要 】

Abstract Background D-dimer, a coagulation-related indicator, has recently been used as a tool for the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), but its reliability is uncertain. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to explore the accuracy of D-dimer in the diagnosis of PJI after joint arthroplasty. Methods We systematically searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases for relevant literature about D-dimer in the diagnosis of PJI. QUADAS-2 was used to assess the risk of bias and clinical applicability of each included study. We used the bivariate meta-analysis framework to pool the sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the SROC curve (AUC). Univariate meta-regression and subgroup analyses were performed to explore the sources of heterogeneity. Results We included 8 eligible studies. The pooled diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were 0.82 (95% CI, 0.70–0.89) and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.55–0.82), respectively. The pooled PLR, NLR, and DOR were 2.7 (95% CI, 1.7–4.4), 0.26 (95% CI, 0.15–0.46), and 10 (95% CI, 4–25), respectively. The AUC was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.8–0.86). Serum D-dimer might have higher diagnostic accuracy than plasma D-dimer for PJI (pooled sensitivity: 0.88 vs 0.67; pooled specificity: 0.76 vs 0.61). Conclusions D-dimer has limited performance for the diagnosis of PJI.

【 授权许可】

Unknown