Abstract
Purpose
Many studies have found associations between laboratory biomarkers and periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), but it remains unclear whether these biomarkers are clinically useful in ruling out PJI. This meta-analysis compared the performance of interleukin-6 (IL-6) versus procalcitonin (PCT) for the diagnosis of PJI.
Materials and Methods
In this meta-analysis, we reviewed studies that evaluated IL-6 or/and PCT as a diagnostic biomarker for PJI and provided sufficient data to permit sensitivity and specificity analyses for each test. The major databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and SCOPUS were searched for appropriate studies from the earliest available date of indexing through February 28, 2017. No restrictions were placed on language of publication.
Results
We identified 18 studies encompassing a total of 1,260 subjects; 16 studies reported on IL-6 [Fig. 1] and 6 studies reported on PCT [Fig. 2]. The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.91 to 0.95) for IL-6 and 0.83 (95% CI, 0.79 to 0.86) for PCT. The pooled sensitivity was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.74 to 0.89) for IL-6 and 0.58 (95% CI, 0.31 to 0.81) for PCT. The pooled specificity was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.84 to 0.95) for IL-6 and 0.95 (95% CI, 0.63 to 1.00) for PCT. Both the IL-6 and PCT tests had a high positive likelihood ratio (LR); 9.3 (95% CI, 5.3 to 16.2) and 12.4 (95% CI, 1.7 to 89.8), respectively, making them excellent rule-in tests for the diagnosis of PJI. The pooled negative LR for IL-6 was 0.19 (95% CI, 0.12 to 0.29), making it suitable as a rule-out test, whereas the pooled negative LR for PCT was 0.44 (95% CI, 0.25 to 0.78), making it unsuitable as a rule-out diagnostic tool.
Conclusion
Based on the results of the current meta-analysis, IL-6 has higher diagnostic value than PCT for the diagnosis of PJI. Moreover, the specificity of the IL-6 test is higher than its sensitivity. Conversely, PCT is not recommended for use as a rule-out diagnostic tool.
For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly.
