Jakrapun Pupaibool1, Shawn Vasoo2, Patricia J Erwin3, Mohammad Hassan Murad4, Elie F Berbari5. 1. Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, 200 1st St SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA. Electronic address: a_jkp@hotmail.com. 2. Division of Clinical Microbiology, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, 200 1st St SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA. 3. Mayo Clinic Library, Mayo Clinic, 200 1st St SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA. 4. Division of Preventive and Occupational Medicine, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, 200 1st St SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA. 5. Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, 200 1st St SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Spontaneous vertebral osteomyelitis (SVOM) is mostly acquired via hematogenous seeding. Diagnosis of SVOM is often delayed because of the insidious nature and rarity of this disease. The microbiological yield of image-guided needle biopsy varies between 36% and 91%. The utility and accuracy of this procedure have not been systematically reviewed. PURPOSE: To systematically review and assess the diagnostic accuracy of image-guided spinal biopsy for SVOM in adults when compared with combined reference standards. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis. SAMPLE: Seven retrospective studies involving 482 patients with clinical and/or radiologic suspicion of SVOM who underwent image-guided spinal biopsy were included. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). Other outcomes included likelihood ratio of a positive test (LRP), likelihood ratio of a negative test (LRN), sensitivity, and specificity. METHODS: We searched in six medical databases through September 1, 2013 for studies evaluating the performance of image-guided spinal biopsy for SVOM with no limits on language or publication date. Combined reference standards, which included histopathologic findings consistent with vertebral osteomyelitis, identifications of pathogens from open surgery and/or blood cultures, and/or evidence of clinical and radiologic improvement after empiric antimicrobial therapy, were used for comparison. The random-effect model was used for meta-analysis. Two reviewers independently selected the studies. RESULTS: Three hundred fifty-eight potentially relevant studies were identified. Seven studies were included in our analysis. Two studies that used only single reference standard were excluded in the sensitivity analysis, and five studies involving 352 patients were pooled. Image-guided spinal biopsy had a DOR of 45.50 (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.66-151.56), an LRP of 16.76 (95% CI, 5.51-50.95), an LRN of 0.39 (95% CI, 0.24-0.64), a sensitivity of 52.2% (95% CI, 45.8-58.5), and a specificity of 99.9% (95% CI, 94.5-100). This is based on the assumption that combined reference standards are a valid standard for comparison. CONCLUSIONS: Image-guided spinal biopsy is highly specific and performs well in predicting SVOM, but has a moderate accuracy for ruling out this diagnosis. This procedure should be considered in the diagnostic work-up of adults suspected with SVOM.
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Spontaneous vertebral osteomyelitis (SVOM) is mostly acquired via hematogenous seeding. Diagnosis of SVOM is often delayed because of the insidious nature and rarity of this disease. The microbiological yield of image-guided needle biopsy varies between 36% and 91%. The utility and accuracy of this procedure have not been systematically reviewed. PURPOSE: To systematically review and assess the diagnostic accuracy of image-guided spinal biopsy for SVOM in adults when compared with combined reference standards. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis. SAMPLE: Seven retrospective studies involving 482 patients with clinical and/or radiologic suspicion of SVOM who underwent image-guided spinal biopsy were included. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). Other outcomes included likelihood ratio of a positive test (LRP), likelihood ratio of a negative test (LRN), sensitivity, and specificity. METHODS: We searched in six medical databases through September 1, 2013 for studies evaluating the performance of image-guided spinal biopsy for SVOM with no limits on language or publication date. Combined reference standards, which included histopathologic findings consistent with vertebral osteomyelitis, identifications of pathogens from open surgery and/or blood cultures, and/or evidence of clinical and radiologic improvement after empiric antimicrobial therapy, were used for comparison. The random-effect model was used for meta-analysis. Two reviewers independently selected the studies. RESULTS: Three hundred fifty-eight potentially relevant studies were identified. Seven studies were included in our analysis. Two studies that used only single reference standard were excluded in the sensitivity analysis, and five studies involving 352 patients were pooled. Image-guided spinal biopsy had a DOR of 45.50 (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.66-151.56), an LRP of 16.76 (95% CI, 5.51-50.95), an LRN of 0.39 (95% CI, 0.24-0.64), a sensitivity of 52.2% (95% CI, 45.8-58.5), and a specificity of 99.9% (95% CI, 94.5-100). This is based on the assumption that combined reference standards are a valid standard for comparison. CONCLUSIONS: Image-guided spinal biopsy is highly specific and performs well in predicting SVOM, but has a moderate accuracy for ruling out this diagnosis. This procedure should be considered in the diagnostic work-up of adults suspected with SVOM.
Authors: Elena Lazzeri; Alessandro Bozzao; Maria Adriana Cataldo; Nicola Petrosillo; Luigi Manfrè; Andrej Trampuz; Alberto Signore; Mario Muto Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-08-09 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Phillip A Bostian; Jonathan M Karnes; Shari Cui; Lisa J Robinson; Scott D Daffner; Michelle R Witt; Sanford E Emery Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2017-03-15 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: Marcos C Schechter; Mohammed K Ali; Benjamin B Risk; Adam D Singer; Gabriel Santamarina; Hannah K Rogers; Ravi R Rajani; Guillermo Umpierrez; Maya Fayfman; Russell R Kempker Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2020-08-29 Impact factor: 3.835
Authors: Ömer Kasalak; Marjan Wouthuyzen-Bakker; Hugo J A Adams; Jelle Overbosch; Rudi A J O Dierckx; Paul C Jutte; Thomas C Kwee Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2018-04-16 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Geertje A M Govaert; Richard Kuehl; Bridget L Atkins; Andrej Trampuz; Mario Morgenstern; William T Obremskey; Michael H J Verhofstad; Martin A McNally; Willem-Jan Metsemakers Journal: J Orthop Trauma Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 2.884
Authors: Andreas G Tsantes; Dimitrios V Papadopoulos; Georgia Vrioni; Spyridon Sioutis; George Sapkas; Ahmed Benzakour; Thami Benzakour; Andrea Angelini; Pietro Ruggieri; Andreas F Mavrogenis Journal: Microorganisms Date: 2020-03-27