Reply to “diagnostic Value of a PCR-Based Technique for Prosthetic Joint Infection”

Zanjing Zhai,Xinhua Qu,Kerong Dai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.00937-14

2014-01-01

Journal of Clinical Microbiology

Abstract:under the curve (AUC) were 0.79 (95% CI, 0.76 to 0.82), 0.86 (95% CI, 0.84 to 0.87), 8.22 (95% CI, 4.66 to 15.16), 0.25 (95% CI, 0.18 to 0.34), 49.03 (95%CI, 30.72 to 78.25), and 0.93 (95% CI, 0.92 to 0.94), respectively (Table 1). Also, they indicated that the diagnostic value of the PCR-based technique might be overestimated in our study (2). However, the discrepancy between our meta-analysis and that of Li and Yu may be mainly attributabletothedifferentstatisticalmethodsused.Themetaanalyses of Li and Yu used Meta-DiSc (version 1.4), based on a traditional univariate model, which had difficulty in providing the 95% CI for AUC, and our meta-analysis used the Midas module for Stata version 11 based on a bivariate mixed-effects regression model (6‐9). Further, we reanalyzed our data using another two statistical methods, including a univariate model withMeta-DiSc(version1.4),andboththebivariatemodeland the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) model with the Metandi module of Stata (version 11). The results showed that using different statistical methods may produce different outcomes (the pooled sensitivities were 0.81 [95% CI, 0.77 to 0.85], 0.86 [95% CI, 0.77 to 0.92], and 0.86 [95% CI, 0.77 to 0.92] and the pooled specificities were 0.86 [95% CI, 0.84 to 0.87], 0.91 [95% CI, 0.81 to 0.96], and 0.91 [95% CI, 0.81 to 0.96] for Meta-DiSc, Midas, and Metandi, respectively) (Table 1). The univariate model may lead to a lower statistic than that for the bivariate model as well as the HSROC model. Further updated meta-analysis is required to assess the use of PCR assays for diagnosis of PJI using multiple statistical methods.