The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Prospective Evaluation of Criteria for Microbiological Diagnosis of Prosthetic-Joint Infection at Revision Arthroplasty
Open accessAbstract
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.
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
Cited by
Tong, S. Y. C., Davis, J. S., Eichenberger, E., Holland, T. L., & Fowler, V. G. (2015) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.00134-14 · Cited by 5,192
Tande, A. J., & Patel, R. (2014) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.00111-13 · Cited by 1,885
Sonication of Removed Hip and Knee Prostheses for Diagnosis of Infection
Trampuz, A., Piper, K. E., Jacobson, M. J., Hanssen, A. D., Unni, K. K., Osmon, D. R., Mandrekar, J. N., Cockerill, F. R., Steckelberg, J. M., Greenleaf, J. F., et al. (2007) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa061588 · Cited by 1,443
Baron, E. J., Miller, J. M., Weinstein, M. P., Richter, S. S., Gilligan, P. H., Thomson, R. B., Bourbeau, P., Carroll, K. C., Kehl, S. C., Dunne, W. M., et al. (2013) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/cid/cit278 · Cited by 592
Phillips, J. E., Crane, T. P., Noy, M., Elliott, T. S. J., & Grimer, R. J. (2006) · The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British volume · doi:10.1302/0301-620x.88b7.17150 · Cited by 513
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
- Publisher
- American Society for 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.