Charlotte Smith, Robert J Maloney, Deborah Wearmouth, Hemant Sharma, Kordo Saeed, Nusreen Ahmad-Saeed, Rachel Annett, Lucinda Barrett, Sara E Boyd, Peter Davies, Harriet Hughes, Gwennan Jones, Laura Leach, Maureen Lynch, Deepa Nayar, Martin Marsh, Shanine Mitchell, Lynn Moffat, Luke S P Moore, Michael E Murphy, Shaan Ashk O'Shea, Teresa Peach, Christina Petridou, Niamh Reidy, Ben Talbot, Catherine Aldridge, Gavin Barlow
{"title":"革兰氏染色在脓毒性关节炎诊断中的多中心评价。","authors":"Charlotte Smith, Robert J Maloney, Deborah Wearmouth, Hemant Sharma, Kordo Saeed, Nusreen Ahmad-Saeed, Rachel Annett, Lucinda Barrett, Sara E Boyd, Peter Davies, Harriet Hughes, Gwennan Jones, Laura Leach, Maureen Lynch, Deepa Nayar, Martin Marsh, Shanine Mitchell, Lynn Moffat, Luke S P Moore, Michael E Murphy, Shaan Ashk O'Shea, Teresa Peach, Christina Petridou, Niamh Reidy, Ben Talbot, Catherine Aldridge, Gavin Barlow","doi":"10.5194/jbji-10-61-2025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Introduction</b>: Gram stain of synovial fluid is a rapid test for the diagnosis of native joint septic arthritis. Single-centre studies have suggested Gram stain will miss a considerable proportion of patients who are subsequently synovial-fluid-culture-positive or polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-positive. The object of this study was to reassess Gram stain in a large, multi-centre cohort of patients from the United Kingdom (UK) and Ireland. <b>Methods</b>: The study was a retrospective analysis combining two large datasets. We defined septic arthritis microbiologically as at least one positive joint aspirate culture and/or PCR test. \"Best case\" and \"worst case\" definitions were applied depending on the likelihood organisms were true infecting pathogens. <b>Results</b>: Gram stain missed a high proportion of culture-/PCR-positive patients using both the best (74 % missed) and worst (81 % missed) case definitions. Using the best case definition, the sensitivity of Gram stain was 0.26, specificity 0.99, positive predictive value 0.84, negative predictive value 0.87, accuracy 0.87, and area under the receiver operator curve 0.62 (95 % CI 0.57 to 0.68, <math><mrow><mi>p</mi> <mo><</mo> <mn>0.001</mn></mrow> </math> ). False positive Gram stains were infrequent (1 %). Age, joint involved, and other synovial fluid characteristics were less predictive of a positive culture/PCR than Gram stain. <b>Conclusions</b>: While a positive synovial fluid Gram stain should always be considered to indicate potential septic arthritis, a negative Gram stain, regardless of synovial fluid crystals or white cell count, should not be used to rule out septic arthritis. The value of Gram stain as an urgent out-of-hours test for septic arthritis is open to considerable debate.</p>","PeriodicalId":15271,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bone and Joint Infection","volume":"10 2","pages":"61-71"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12050984/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Multi-centre evaluation of Gram stain in the diagnosis of septic arthritis.\",\"authors\":\"Charlotte Smith, Robert J Maloney, Deborah Wearmouth, Hemant Sharma, Kordo Saeed, Nusreen Ahmad-Saeed, Rachel Annett, Lucinda Barrett, Sara E Boyd, Peter Davies, Harriet Hughes, Gwennan Jones, Laura Leach, Maureen Lynch, Deepa Nayar, Martin Marsh, Shanine Mitchell, Lynn Moffat, Luke S P Moore, Michael E Murphy, Shaan Ashk O'Shea, Teresa Peach, Christina Petridou, Niamh Reidy, Ben Talbot, Catherine Aldridge, Gavin Barlow\",\"doi\":\"10.5194/jbji-10-61-2025\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Introduction</b>: Gram stain of synovial fluid is a rapid test for the diagnosis of native joint septic arthritis. Single-centre studies have suggested Gram stain will miss a considerable proportion of patients who are subsequently synovial-fluid-culture-positive or polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-positive. The object of this study was to reassess Gram stain in a large, multi-centre cohort of patients from the United Kingdom (UK) and Ireland. <b>Methods</b>: The study was a retrospective analysis combining two large datasets. We defined septic arthritis microbiologically as at least one positive joint aspirate culture and/or PCR test. \\\"Best case\\\" and \\\"worst case\\\" definitions were applied depending on the likelihood organisms were true infecting pathogens. <b>Results</b>: Gram stain missed a high proportion of culture-/PCR-positive patients using both the best (74 % missed) and worst (81 % missed) case definitions. Using the best case definition, the sensitivity of Gram stain was 0.26, specificity 0.99, positive predictive value 0.84, negative predictive value 0.87, accuracy 0.87, and area under the receiver operator curve 0.62 (95 % CI 0.57 to 0.68, <math><mrow><mi>p</mi> <mo><</mo> <mn>0.001</mn></mrow> </math> ). False positive Gram stains were infrequent (1 %). Age, joint involved, and other synovial fluid characteristics were less predictive of a positive culture/PCR than Gram stain. <b>Conclusions</b>: While a positive synovial fluid Gram stain should always be considered to indicate potential septic arthritis, a negative Gram stain, regardless of synovial fluid crystals or white cell count, should not be used to rule out septic arthritis. The value of Gram stain as an urgent out-of-hours test for septic arthritis is open to considerable debate.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15271,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Bone and Joint Infection\",\"volume\":\"10 2\",\"pages\":\"61-71\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12050984/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Bone and Joint Infection\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5194/jbji-10-61-2025\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Bone and Joint Infection","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5194/jbji-10-61-2025","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
滑膜液革兰氏染色是一种快速诊断关节感染性关节炎的方法。单中心研究表明革兰氏染色将错过相当比例的患者随后的滑膜液培养阳性或聚合酶链反应(PCR)阳性。本研究的目的是在英国和爱尔兰的一个大型多中心队列患者中重新评估革兰氏染色。方法:回顾性分析两大数据集。我们将感染性关节炎微生物定义为至少一项阳性的关节抽吸培养和/或PCR检测。“最佳情况”和“最坏情况”的定义取决于生物体真正感染病原体的可能性。结果:革兰氏染色在最佳(74%漏检)和最差(81%漏检)病例定义中都漏检了大量培养/ pcr阳性患者。采用最佳病例定义,革兰氏染色的敏感性为0.26,特异性为0.99,阳性预测值为0.84,阴性预测值为0.87,准确度为0.87,受试者操作曲线下面积为0.62 (95% CI 0.57 ~ 0.68, p 0.001)。革兰氏染色假阳性少见(1%)。年龄、关节受累和其他滑液特征对培养/PCR阳性的预测低于革兰氏染色。结论:虽然革兰氏染色阳性应被认为是潜在的脓毒性关节炎,但革兰氏染色阴性,无论是否有滑膜液结晶或白细胞计数,都不应用于排除脓毒性关节炎。革兰氏染色作为化脓性关节炎的紧急非工作时间测试的价值是开放的相当大的争论。
Multi-centre evaluation of Gram stain in the diagnosis of septic arthritis.
Introduction: Gram stain of synovial fluid is a rapid test for the diagnosis of native joint septic arthritis. Single-centre studies have suggested Gram stain will miss a considerable proportion of patients who are subsequently synovial-fluid-culture-positive or polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-positive. The object of this study was to reassess Gram stain in a large, multi-centre cohort of patients from the United Kingdom (UK) and Ireland. Methods: The study was a retrospective analysis combining two large datasets. We defined septic arthritis microbiologically as at least one positive joint aspirate culture and/or PCR test. "Best case" and "worst case" definitions were applied depending on the likelihood organisms were true infecting pathogens. Results: Gram stain missed a high proportion of culture-/PCR-positive patients using both the best (74 % missed) and worst (81 % missed) case definitions. Using the best case definition, the sensitivity of Gram stain was 0.26, specificity 0.99, positive predictive value 0.84, negative predictive value 0.87, accuracy 0.87, and area under the receiver operator curve 0.62 (95 % CI 0.57 to 0.68, ). False positive Gram stains were infrequent (1 %). Age, joint involved, and other synovial fluid characteristics were less predictive of a positive culture/PCR than Gram stain. Conclusions: While a positive synovial fluid Gram stain should always be considered to indicate potential septic arthritis, a negative Gram stain, regardless of synovial fluid crystals or white cell count, should not be used to rule out septic arthritis. The value of Gram stain as an urgent out-of-hours test for septic arthritis is open to considerable debate.