Supplementary MaterialsAdditional document 1. review, 16 research used -defensin as well as the additional 12 were carried out using LE remove. The pooled level of sensitivity, specificity, and DOR of LE remove had been 87% (95% CI 84C90%), 96% (95% CI 95C97%), and 170.09 (95% CI 97.63C296.32), respectively, as the pooled level of sensitivity, specificity, and DOR of -defensin were 87% (95% CI 83C90%), 97% (95% CI 96C98%), and 158.18 (95% CI 74.26C336.91), respectively. The AUSROC for LE -defensin and strip were 0.9818 and 0.9685, respectively. Summary Both LE remove and -defensin of synovial liquid offer fast and easy diagnosis for PJI. Sensitivity of -defensin and LE strip are the same, while both these two methods have high Cloxyfonac specificity in clinical practice. unavailable, prospective study, for retrospective study, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, European Bone and Joint Infection Society criteria, Infectious Diseases Society of America Table 2 Characteristics of 13 studies applying leukocyte esterase (LE) strip for meta-analysis unavailable, prospective study, retrospective study, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, International Consensus Meeting *Both ++ and ++/+ as cutoff value were analyzed for the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value #Similar to MSIS &Blood samples excluded Both bloody and non-bloody samples were analyzed for the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value, but only non-bloody samples were included in the meta-analysis The pooled sensitivity and specificity of -defensin were 87% (95% CI 83C90%) and 97% (95% CI 96C98%), respectively, while the pooled sensitivity and specificity of LE strip were 79% (95% CI 75C82%) and 96% (95% CI 95C97%), REV7 respectively (Fig.?3). The pooled positive likelihood ratio (PLR) and negative likelihood ratio (NLR) of -defensin and LE strip are illustrated in Fig.?4. The pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of -defensin and LE were 158.18 (95% CI 74.26C336.91) and 164.18 (95% CI 85.81C314.11), respectively (Fig.?5). The areas under the summary of receiver operating characteristics curve (SROC) for LE strip and -defensin were 0.9826 and 0.9685, respectively (Fig.?6). Open in a separate window Fig. 3 Pooled sensitivity and specificity for the included studies with the associated 95% confidence interval (a -defensin, b LE strip) Open in a separate window Fig. 4 Positive likelihood ratio (PLR) and negative likelihood ratio (NLR) for the included studies with the associated 95% confidence interval (a -defensin, Cloxyfonac b LE strip) Open in a separate window Fig. 5 Diagnostic OR for the included studies with the associated 95% confidence interval (a -defensin, b LE strip) Open in a separate window Fig. 6 Summary receiver operating characteristic plot for the included studies with the associated 95% confidence region and the 95% prediction region (a -defensin, b LE strip) There are two methods used for diagnosis of -defensin (ELISA and lateral flow test strip), which have different sensitivities. Thus, we divided these included studies into two subgroups based on the methods used. The pooled diagnostic parameters are illustrated in Table?3. There was considerable heterogeneity among Cloxyfonac research: the I2 figures for level of sensitivity and specificity ideals of -defensin had been 56.8% and 63.5%, respectively, as the I2 statistics for sensitivity and specificity values of LE remove were 92% and 33.1%, respectively (Shape ?(Figure77). Open up in another windowpane Fig. 7 Pooled.