新一代测序在不同标本类型中对假体周围关节感染的诊断准确性比较:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。

IF 5
Lina Wang, Shangxiang Feng, Zhongyuan Zhao, Yuchi Zhao, Shengjie Dong, Li Cao, Kun Song
{"title":"新一代测序在不同标本类型中对假体周围关节感染的诊断准确性比较:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。","authors":"Lina Wang, Shangxiang Feng, Zhongyuan Zhao, Yuchi Zhao, Shengjie Dong, Li Cao, Kun Song","doi":"10.1002/ksa.70095","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Discrepancies in next-generation sequencing (NGS) results across synovial fluid, periprosthetic tissues and implant sonicate fluid pose a significant clinical challenge in diagnosing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic accuracy of these NGS sample types for PJI.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library databases from inception to 1 June 2025. Two independent reviewers performed data extraction and assessed study quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. For each specimen type, we estimated the pooled sensitivity and specificity, summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve and the area under the SROC curve (AUC).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Following screening, 18 studies were included. Pooled sensitivities of NGS for PJI diagnosis were as follows: synovial fluid 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79-0.91), periprosthetic tissue 0.86 (95% CI: 0.69-0.95) and sonicate fluid 0.89 (95% CI: 0.77-0.95). Corresponding specificities were 0.94 (95% CI: 0.91-0.96), 0.98 (95% CI: 0.85-1.00) and 0.96 (95% CI: 0.91-0.98). AUCs were 0.93 (0.89-0.95), 0.96 (0.88-0.97) and 0.96 (0.88-0.97), respectively. Pairwise comparisons of AUCs showed no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This meta-analysis suggests that NGS of sonicate fluid demonstrates higher sensitivity compared to NGS of synovial fluid or periprosthetic tissue, while maintaining strong specificity, making it valuable for detecting infection. Periprosthetic tissue NGS demonstrated exceptional specificity and acceptable sensitivity, making it valuable for confirming infection. All specimens show clinically useful AUC values. Sonicate fluid shows promise, but specimen selection warrants careful consideration of the sensitivity-specificity trade-off in clinical practice and requires validation of clinical utility due to the absence of a perfect PJI diagnostic gold standard and the risk of false positives.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level II.</p>","PeriodicalId":520702,"journal":{"name":"Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative diagnostic accuracy of next-generation sequencing in different specimen types for periprosthetic joint infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Lina Wang, Shangxiang Feng, Zhongyuan Zhao, Yuchi Zhao, Shengjie Dong, Li Cao, Kun Song\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ksa.70095\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Discrepancies in next-generation sequencing (NGS) results across synovial fluid, periprosthetic tissues and implant sonicate fluid pose a significant clinical challenge in diagnosing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic accuracy of these NGS sample types for PJI.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library databases from inception to 1 June 2025. Two independent reviewers performed data extraction and assessed study quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. For each specimen type, we estimated the pooled sensitivity and specificity, summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve and the area under the SROC curve (AUC).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Following screening, 18 studies were included. Pooled sensitivities of NGS for PJI diagnosis were as follows: synovial fluid 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79-0.91), periprosthetic tissue 0.86 (95% CI: 0.69-0.95) and sonicate fluid 0.89 (95% CI: 0.77-0.95). Corresponding specificities were 0.94 (95% CI: 0.91-0.96), 0.98 (95% CI: 0.85-1.00) and 0.96 (95% CI: 0.91-0.98). AUCs were 0.93 (0.89-0.95), 0.96 (0.88-0.97) and 0.96 (0.88-0.97), respectively. Pairwise comparisons of AUCs showed no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This meta-analysis suggests that NGS of sonicate fluid demonstrates higher sensitivity compared to NGS of synovial fluid or periprosthetic tissue, while maintaining strong specificity, making it valuable for detecting infection. Periprosthetic tissue NGS demonstrated exceptional specificity and acceptable sensitivity, making it valuable for confirming infection. All specimens show clinically useful AUC values. Sonicate fluid shows promise, but specimen selection warrants careful consideration of the sensitivity-specificity trade-off in clinical practice and requires validation of clinical utility due to the absence of a perfect PJI diagnostic gold standard and the risk of false positives.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level II.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":520702,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/ksa.70095\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ksa.70095","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:下一代测序(NGS)结果在滑液、假体周围组织和假体超声液中的差异对诊断假体周围关节感染(PJI)提出了重大的临床挑战。我们进行了一项系统综述和荟萃分析,以比较这些NGS样本类型对PJI的诊断准确性。方法:本研究遵循系统评价和荟萃分析指南的首选报告项目。在PubMed、EMBASE和Cochrane图书馆数据库中进行了全面的文献检索,检索时间从成立到2025年6月1日。两名独立审稿人进行数据提取,并使用诊断准确性研究质量评估-2工具评估研究质量。对于每种标本类型,我们估计了合并敏感性和特异性、总受试者工作特征(SROC)曲线和SROC曲线下面积(AUC)。结果:经筛选,纳入18项研究。NGS对PJI诊断的综合敏感性如下:滑液0.86(95%可信区间[CI]: 0.79-0.91),假体周围组织0.86 (95% CI: 0.69-0.95),超声液0.89 (95% CI: 0.77-0.95)。相应的特异性分别为0.94 (95% CI: 0.91-0.96)、0.98 (95% CI: 0.85-1.00)和0.96 (95% CI: 0.91-0.98)。auc分别为0.93(0.89 ~ 0.95)、0.96(0.88 ~ 0.97)和0.96(0.88 ~ 0.97)。auc两两比较差异无统计学意义(p < 0.05)。结论:该荟萃分析表明,与滑膜液或假体周围组织的NGS相比,超声液的NGS具有更高的敏感性,同时保持了很强的特异性,使其在检测感染方面具有价值。假体周围组织NGS表现出特殊的特异性和可接受的敏感性,使其在确认感染方面具有价值。所有标本均显示临床上有用的AUC值。声学流体显示出前景,但标本选择需要在临床实践中仔细考虑敏感性和特异性的权衡,并且由于缺乏完美的PJI诊断金标准和假阳性的风险,需要对临床实用性进行验证。证据等级:二级。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative diagnostic accuracy of next-generation sequencing in different specimen types for periprosthetic joint infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Purpose: Discrepancies in next-generation sequencing (NGS) results across synovial fluid, periprosthetic tissues and implant sonicate fluid pose a significant clinical challenge in diagnosing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic accuracy of these NGS sample types for PJI.

Methods: This study adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library databases from inception to 1 June 2025. Two independent reviewers performed data extraction and assessed study quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. For each specimen type, we estimated the pooled sensitivity and specificity, summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve and the area under the SROC curve (AUC).

Results: Following screening, 18 studies were included. Pooled sensitivities of NGS for PJI diagnosis were as follows: synovial fluid 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79-0.91), periprosthetic tissue 0.86 (95% CI: 0.69-0.95) and sonicate fluid 0.89 (95% CI: 0.77-0.95). Corresponding specificities were 0.94 (95% CI: 0.91-0.96), 0.98 (95% CI: 0.85-1.00) and 0.96 (95% CI: 0.91-0.98). AUCs were 0.93 (0.89-0.95), 0.96 (0.88-0.97) and 0.96 (0.88-0.97), respectively. Pairwise comparisons of AUCs showed no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05).

Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggests that NGS of sonicate fluid demonstrates higher sensitivity compared to NGS of synovial fluid or periprosthetic tissue, while maintaining strong specificity, making it valuable for detecting infection. Periprosthetic tissue NGS demonstrated exceptional specificity and acceptable sensitivity, making it valuable for confirming infection. All specimens show clinically useful AUC values. Sonicate fluid shows promise, but specimen selection warrants careful consideration of the sensitivity-specificity trade-off in clinical practice and requires validation of clinical utility due to the absence of a perfect PJI diagnostic gold standard and the risk of false positives.

Level of evidence: Level II.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信