The DOI matches its Crossref record; 60 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evidence-based Diagnostics: Adult Septic Arthritis
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Acutely swollen or painful joints are common complaints in the emergency department (ED). Septic arthritis in adults is a challenging diagnosis, but prompt differentiation of a bacterial etiology is crucial to minimize morbidity and mortality. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to perform a systematic review describing the diagnostic characteristics of history, physical examination, and bedside laboratory tests for nongonococcal septic arthritis. A secondary objective was to quantify test and treatment thresholds using derived estimates of sensitivity and specificity, as well as best-evidence diagnostic and treatment risks and anticipated benefits from appropriate therapy. METHODS: Two electronic search engines (PUBMED and EMBASE) were used in conjunction with a selected bibliography and scientific abstract hand search. Inclusion criteria included adult trials of patients presenting with monoarticular complaints if they reported sufficient detail to reconstruct partial or complete 2 × 2 contingency tables for experimental diagnostic test characteristics using an acceptable criterion standard. Evidence was rated by two investigators using the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS). When more than one similarly designed trial existed for a diagnostic test, meta-analysis was conducted using a random effects model. Interval likelihood ratios (LRs) were computed when possible. To illustrate one method to quantify theoretical points in the probability of disease whereby clinicians might cease testing altogether and either withhold treatment (test threshold) or initiate definitive therapy in lieu of further diagnostics (treatment threshold), an interactive spreadsheet was designed and sample calculations were provided based on research estimates of diagnostic accuracy, diagnostic risk, and therapeutic risk/benefits. RESULTS: The prevalence of nongonococcal septic arthritis in ED patients with a single acutely painful joint is approximately 27% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 17% to 38%). With the exception of joint surgery (positive likelihood ratio [+LR] = 6.9) or skin infection overlying a prosthetic joint (+LR = 15.0), history, physical examination, and serum tests do not significantly alter posttest probability. Serum inflammatory markers such as white blood cell (WBC) counts, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and C-reactive protein (CRP) are not useful acutely. The interval LR for synovial white blood cell (sWBC) counts of 0 × 10(9)-25 × 10(9)/L was 0.33; for 25 × 10(9)-50 × 10(9)/L, 1.06; for 50 × 10(9)-100 × 10(9)/L, 3.59; and exceeding 100 × 10(9)/L, infinity. Synovial lactate may be useful to rule in or rule out the diagnosis of septic arthritis with a +LR ranging from 2.4 to infinity, and negative likelihood ratio (-LR) ranging from 0 to 0.46. Rapid polymerase chain reaction (PCR) of synovial fluid may identify the causative organism within 3 hours. Based on 56% sensitivity and 90% specificity for sWBC counts of >50 × 10(9)/L in conjunction with best-evidence estimates for diagnosis-related risk and treatment-related risk/benefit, the arthrocentesis test threshold is 5%, with a treatment threshold of 39%. CONCLUSIONS: Recent joint surgery or cellulitis overlying a prosthetic hip or knee were the only findings on history or physical examination that significantly alter the probability of nongonococcal septic arthritis. Extreme values of sWBC (>50 × 10(9)/L) can increase, but not decrease, the probability of septic arthritis. Future ED-based diagnostic trials are needed to evaluate the role of clinical gestalt and the efficacy of nontraditional synovial markers such as lactate.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology<SUBTITLE>A Proposal for Reporting</SUBTITLE>
Stroup, D. F. (2000) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.283.15.2008 · Cited by 20,623
Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit
Cohen, J. (1968) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0026256 · Cited by 8,736
Whiting, P., Rutjes, A. W., Reitsma, J. B., Bossuyt, P. M., & Kleijnen, J. (2003) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-3-25 · Cited by 3,592
Deeks, J. J., Macaskill, P., & Irwig, L. (2005) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.01.016 · Cited by 2,910
Meta-DiSc: a software for meta-analysis of test accuracy data
Zamora, J., Abraira, V., Muriel, A., Khan, K., & Coomarasamy, A. (2006) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-6-31 · Cited by 1,883
Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests.
Lijmer, J. G. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.11.1061 · Cited by 1,861
Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies
Schünemann, H. J., Oxman, A. D., Brozek, J., Glasziou, P., Jaeschke, R., Vist, G. E., Williams, J. W., Kunz, R., Craig, J., Montori, V. M., et al. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39500.677199.ae · Cited by 1,782
The Threshold Approach to Clinical Decision Making
Pauker, S. G., & Kassirer, J. P. (1980) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm198005153022003 · Cited by 1,358
The STARD Statement for Reporting Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: Explanation and Elaboration
Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Glasziou, P. P., Irwig, L. M., Moher, D., Rennie, D., de Vet, H. C. W., & Lijmer, J. G. (2003) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-138-1-200301070-00012-w1 · Cited by 1,124
Cited by
Shen, C.-J., Wu, M.-S., Lin, K.-H., Lin, W.-L., Chen, H.-C., Wu, J.-Y., Lee, M. C.-H., & Lee, C.-C. (2013) · European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1007/s10096-012-1812-6 · Cited by 105
Metadata
- Authors
- Carpenter, C. R., Schuur, J. D., Everett, W. W., & Pines, J. M.
- Venue
- Academic Emergency Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-08
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 781-796
- ISSN
- 1069-6563 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1813816463
- Cited by
- 314
- References
- 60
- FWCI
- 13.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evidence-based Diagnostics: Adult Septic Arthritis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2011.01121.x
- The paper
- Carpenter, C. R., Schuur, J. D., Everett, W. W., & Pines, J. M. (2011). Evidence-based Diagnostics: Adult Septic Arthritis. Academic Emergency Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2011.01121.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.