D-dimer in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: D-dimer, a coagulation-related indicator, has recently been used as a tool for the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), but its reliability is uncertain. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to explore the accuracy of D-dimer in the diagnosis of PJI after joint arthroplasty.

Methods: We systematically searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases for relevant literature about D-dimer in the diagnosis of PJI. QUADAS-2 was used to assess the risk of bias and clinical applicability of each included study. We used the bivariate meta-analysis framework to pool the sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the SROC curve (AUC). Univariate meta-regression and subgroup analyses were performed to explore the sources of heterogeneity.

Results: We included 8 eligible studies. The pooled diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were 0.82 (95% CI, 0.70-0.89) and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.55-0.82), respectively. The pooled PLR, NLR, and DOR were 2.7 (95% CI, 1.7-4.4), 0.26 (95% CI, 0.15-0.46), and 10 (95% CI, 4-25), respectively. The AUC was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.8-0.86). Serum D-dimer might have higher diagnostic accuracy than plasma D-dimer for PJI (pooled sensitivity: 0.88 vs 0.67; pooled specificity: 0.76 vs 0.61).

Conclusions: D-dimer has limited performance for the diagnosis of PJI.