Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 725

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Prospective Evaluation of Criteria for Microbiological Diagnosis of Prosthetic-Joint Infection at Revision Arthroplasty

Open access
Atkins, Bridget L., Athanasou, Nicholas, Deeks, Jonathan J., Crook, Derrick W. M., Simpson, Hamish, Peto, Timothy E. A., McLardy-Smith, Peter, Berendt, Anthony R., Group, The Osiris Collaborative Study·1998·Journal of Clinical Microbiology

Abstract

A prospective study was performed to establish criteria for the microbiological diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection at elective revision arthroplasty. Patients were treated in a multidisciplinary unit dedicated to the management and study of musculoskeletal infection. Standard multiple samples of periprosthetic tissue were obtained at surgery, Gram stained, and cultured by direct and enrichment methods. With reference to histology as the criterion standard, sensitivities, specificities, and likelihood ratios (LRs) were calculated by using different cutoffs for the diagnosis of infection. We performed revisions on 334 patients over a 17-month period, of whom 297 were evaluable. The remaining 37 were excluded because histology results were unavailable or could not be interpreted due to underlying inflammatory joint disease. There were 41 infections, with only 65% of all samples sent from infected patients being culture positive, suggesting low numbers of bacteria in the samples taken. The isolation of an indistinguishable microorganism from three or more independent specimens was highly predictive of infection (sensitivity, 65%; specificity, 99.6%; LR, 168.6), while Gram staining was less useful (sensitivity, 12%; specificity, 98%; LR, 10). A simple mathematical model was developed to predict the performance of the diagnostic test. We recommend that five or six specimens be sent, that the cutoff for a definite diagnosis of infection be three or more operative specimens that yield an indistinguishable organism, and that because of its low level of sensitivity, Gram staining should be abandoned as a diagnostic tool at elective revision arthroplasty.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1128/jcm.36.10.2932-2939.1998

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 725

Metadata

Authors
Atkins, B. L., Athanasou, N., Deeks, J. J., Crook, D. W. M., Simpson, H., Peto, T. E. A., McLardy-Smith, P., Berendt, A. R., & Group, T. O. C. S.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
Published
1998-10
Volume
36
Issue
10
Pages
2932-2939
ISSN
  • 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-660X
OpenAlex
W2141339555
Cited by
725
References
0
FWCI
7.40
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: Prospective Evaluation of Criteria for Microbiological Diagnosis of Prosthetic-Joint Infection at Revision Arthroplasty. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/jcm.36.10.2932-2939.1998
The paper
Atkins, B. L., Athanasou, N., Deeks, J. J., Crook, D. W. M., Simpson, H., Peto, T. E. A., McLardy-Smith, P., Berendt, A. R., & Group, T. O. C. S. (1998). Prospective Evaluation of Criteria for Microbiological Diagnosis of Prosthetic-Joint Infection at Revision Arthroplasty. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.36.10.2932-2939.1998

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.