Alex B Walinga1,2,3, Tobias Stornebrink1,2,3, David W G Langerhuizen1,2,3, Peter A A Struijs1,2,3, Gino M M J Kerkhoffs1,2,3, Stein J Janssen1,2,3. 1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 2. Academic Center for Evidence-based Sports medicine, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 3. Amsterdam Collaboration for Health and Safety in Sports, International Olympic Committee Research Center Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Abstract
AIMS: This study aimed to answer two questions: what are the best diagnostic methods for diagnosing bacterial arthritis of a native joint?; and what are the most commonly used definitions for bacterial arthritis of a native joint? METHODS: We performed a search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane libraries for relevant studies published between January 1980 and April 2020. Of 3,209 identified studies, we included 27 after full screening. Sensitivity, specificity, area under the curve, and Youden index of diagnostic tests were extracted from included studies. We grouped test characteristics per diagnostic modality. We extracted the definitions used to establish a definitive diagnosis of bacterial arthritis of a native joint per study. RESULTS: Overall, 28 unique diagnostic tests for diagnosing bacterial arthritis of a native joint were identified. The following five tests were deemed most useful: serum ESR (sensitivity: 34% to 100%, specificity: 23% to 93%), serum CRP (sensitivity: 58% to 100%, specificity: 0% to 96%), serum procalcitonin (sensitivity: 0% to 100%, specificity: 68% to 100%), the proportion of synovial polymorphonuclear cells (sensitivity: 42% to 100%, specificity: 54% to 94%), and the gram stain of synovial fluid (sensitivity: 27% to 81%, specificity: 99% to 100%). CONCLUSION: Diagnostic methods with relatively high sensitivities, such as serum CRP, ESR, and synovial polymorphonuclear cells, are useful for screening. Diagnostic methods with a relatively high specificity, such as serum procalcitonin and synovial fluid gram stain, are useful for establishing a diagnosis of bacterial arthritis. This review helps to interpret the value of various diagnostic tests for diagnosing bacterial arthritis of a native joint in clinical practice. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(12):1745-1753.
AIMS: This study aimed to answer two questions: what are the best diagnostic methods for diagnosing bacterial arthritis of a native joint?; and what are the most commonly used definitions for bacterial arthritis of a native joint? METHODS: We performed a search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane libraries for relevant studies published between January 1980 and April 2020. Of 3,209 identified studies, we included 27 after full screening. Sensitivity, specificity, area under the curve, and Youden index of diagnostic tests were extracted from included studies. We grouped test characteristics per diagnostic modality. We extracted the definitions used to establish a definitive diagnosis of bacterial arthritis of a native joint per study. RESULTS: Overall, 28 unique diagnostic tests for diagnosing bacterial arthritis of a native joint were identified. The following five tests were deemed most useful: serum ESR (sensitivity: 34% to 100%, specificity: 23% to 93%), serum CRP (sensitivity: 58% to 100%, specificity: 0% to 96%), serum procalcitonin (sensitivity: 0% to 100%, specificity: 68% to 100%), the proportion of synovial polymorphonuclear cells (sensitivity: 42% to 100%, specificity: 54% to 94%), and the gram stain of synovial fluid (sensitivity: 27% to 81%, specificity: 99% to 100%). CONCLUSION: Diagnostic methods with relatively high sensitivities, such as serum CRP, ESR, and synovial polymorphonuclear cells, are useful for screening. Diagnostic methods with a relatively high specificity, such as serum procalcitonin and synovial fluid gram stain, are useful for establishing a diagnosis of bacterial arthritis. This review helps to interpret the value of various diagnostic tests for diagnosing bacterial arthritis of a native joint in clinical practice. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(12):1745-1753.