Comparable clinical outcomes of culture-negative and culture-positive periprosthetic joint infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of culture-negative periprosthetic joint infection (CN PJI) with those of culture-positive periprosthetic joint infection (CP PJI). Methods Data were obtained from Embase, Web of Science and EBSCO for all available studies comparing the clinical outcomes of CN PJI with those of CP PJI. The quality of the studies was scored using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale (NOS). Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to assess clinical outcomes. Subgroup analyses were performed to explain heterogeneity among the included studies. Publication bias was estimated using Begg’s funnel plot. Sensitivity analysis was performed to test the stability of pooled results. Results Thirty studies with 1630 (38.7%) CN PJI and 2577 (61.3%) CP PJI were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled results of the included studies showed that overall failure rate in CN PJI group (19.0%, 309/1630) was significantly lower than that in CP PJI group (23.4%, 604/2577) (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.47–0.84, P = 0.002). We performed the subgroup analysis based on the surgical strategies, the pooled results of nine studies for patients undergoing debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) revealed that failure rate in CN PJI group (22.2%, 53/239) was significantly lower than that in CP PJI group (29.3%, 227/775) (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.43–0.90, P = 0.01), the pooled results of four studies for patients undergoing one-stage revision revealed that failure rate between CN PJI group (11.5%, 11/96) and CP PJI group (7.6%, 27/355) had no significant difference (OR 1.57, 95% CI 0.75–3.26, P = 0.23), and the pooled results of 19 studies for patients undergoing two-stage revision revealed that failure rate in CN PJI group (16.1%, 171/1062) was significantly lower than that in CP PJI group (20.4%, 206/1010) (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.34–0.79, P = 0.002). Conclusions CN PJI group had similar or better survival rate when compared with CP PJI group for patients who underwent DAIR, one-stage or two-stage revision. Negative culture was not a worse prognostic factor for PJI.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.050 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".