Fibrinogen performs better than D-dimer for the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection: a meta-analysis of diagnostic trials

Table 2 Univariable meta-regression and subgroup analysis for potential heterogeneity in studies for D-dimer

Covariate	No. of studies	Sensitivity (95% CI)	P value	Specificity (95% CI)	P value
Country
USA	2	0.82 [0.69–0.95]	0.27	0.86 [0.75–0.97]	0.90
China	7	0.79 [0.71–0.87]	.	0.73 [0.64–0.82]	.
Study design
Prospective	3	0.89 [0.83–0.95]	0.41	0.84 [0.75–0.94]	0.71
Retrospective	6	0.73 [0.67–0.79]	.	0.72 [0.61–0.82]	.
No. of involved joints
> 150	3	0.76 [0.64–0.87]	0.01*	0.74 [0.58–0.89]	0.14
< 150	6	0.81 [0.74–0.89]	.	0.78 [0.68–0.88]	.
Disease spectrum
PJI + aseptic	6	0.79 [0.70–0.87]	0.06	0.73 [0.62–0.84]	0.03*
PJI + aseptic + primary arthroplasty/reimplantaion	3	0.81 [0.69–0.92]	.	0.82 [0.71–0.93]	.
Comorbidities influencing D-dimer
Excluded	5	0.77 [0.67–0.86]	0.01*	0.71 [0.59–0.82]	0.01*
Not excluded	4	0.82 [0.73–0.91]	.	0.83 [0.73–0.92]	.
Sample source
Plasma	4	0.75 [0.65–0.85]	0.00*	0.68 [0.56–0.81]	0.00*
Serum	5	0.83 [0.75–0.90]	.	0.82 [0.74–0.90]	.
Optimal cutoff value
< 900 ng/ml	4	0.81 [0.71–0.91]	0.14	0.81 [0.72–0.91]	0.54
> 900 ng/ml	5	0.78 [0.69–0.87]	.	0.72 [0.60–0.83]	.

ISSN: 1749-799X