Level of Agreement With a Multi-Test Approach to the Diagnosis of Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis

Although bone biopsy has historically been considered the “gold standard” or “standard reference” for the diagnosis of diabetic foot osteomyelitis, some contemporary investigations have provided evidence against this as a single diagnostic test and in support of a combination of clinical, laboratory...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Journal of foot and ankle surgery 2018-11, Vol.57 (6), p.1137-1139
Hauptverfasser: Meyr, Andrew J., Seo, Kyung, Khurana, Jasvir S., Choksi, Rachana, Chakraborty, Baidarbhi
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1139
container_issue 6
container_start_page 1137
container_title The Journal of foot and ankle surgery
container_volume 57
creator Meyr, Andrew J.
Seo, Kyung
Khurana, Jasvir S.
Choksi, Rachana
Chakraborty, Baidarbhi
description Although bone biopsy has historically been considered the “gold standard” or “standard reference” for the diagnosis of diabetic foot osteomyelitis, some contemporary investigations have provided evidence against this as a single diagnostic test and in support of a combination of clinical, laboratory, and radiographic findings. The objective of this investigation was to measure the level of agreement between several commonly used forms of diagnostic testing for diabetic foot osteomyelitis. A retrospective chart review was performed of 50 consecutive patients admitted to a single tertiary healthcare center with the documented performance of 1) a clinical probe-to-bone test on hospital admission; 2) plain film radiographs prior to any surgical intervention; 3) magnetic resonance imaging prior to any surgical intervention; and an intraoperative excisional bone debridement performed, with samples sent for both 4) histologic analysis and 5) microbiologic analysis. A frequency count of agreement among these 5 tests was performed, and the interobserver (or inter-test) agreement was measured using the kappa statistic. We observed low levels of inter-test agreement between the 5 diagnostic tests (range 42.0%–62.0%), and levels of chance-corrected agreement were well below what would be considered appropriate for a “gold standard” or “standard reference.” Levels of the kappa statistic ranged from 0.0 to 0.220, with most inter-test comparisons falling in the “poor agreement” and “slight agreement” interpretation ranges. The highest level of agreement occurred between the plain film radiographs and magnetic resonance imaging (62.0% agreement and kappa statistic of 0.220). Although it is likely that a combination of clinical, radiographic, and laboratory tests provides the best diagnostic approach for diabetic foot osteomyelitis, the data provided herein indicate that the tests themselves might have high intrinsic levels of unreliability and that the specific combination of tests that might be best used remains unclear.
doi_str_mv 10.1053/j.jfas.2018.05.010
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2099896229</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1067251618302205</els_id><sourcerecordid>2197781190</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c389t-7f5084da981b9ba0c1c762b4df6129cc3d261c4d2d8ee92fb6c809dd69a2178b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkU9PGzEQxS1EVSj0C3BAPnLZ7Xj2ny31EkEpSKm4UPWELK89SxztxunaQeLb11Ggx_Y0M9LvPY3eY-xCQCmgqb6sy_VgYokgZAlNCQKO2KloaiwQsT7OO7RdgY1oT9inGNcAiEo2H9lJlSUCKjxlT0t6oZGHgS-eZ6KJNon_8mnFDf-xG5MvHikmvthu52DsiqfA04r4jTfPmxB93Avz0VPylt-GkPhDTBSmVxp98vGcfRjMGOnz2zxjP2-_PV7fFcuH7_fXi2VhK6lS0Q0NyNoZJUWvegNW2K7FvnZDK1BZWzlsha0dOkmkcOhbK0E51yqDopN9dcauDr75zd-7_LGefLQ0jmZDYRc1CtV1UggF_0dBKananFRG8YDaOcQ406C3s5_M_KoF6H0Deq33Deh9AxoanRvIoss3_10_kfsreY88A18PAOVAXjzNOlpPG0vOz2STdsH_y_8Pp4KWig</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2099896229</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Level of Agreement With a Multi-Test Approach to the Diagnosis of Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>Meyr, Andrew J. ; Seo, Kyung ; Khurana, Jasvir S. ; Choksi, Rachana ; Chakraborty, Baidarbhi</creator><creatorcontrib>Meyr, Andrew J. ; Seo, Kyung ; Khurana, Jasvir S. ; Choksi, Rachana ; Chakraborty, Baidarbhi</creatorcontrib><description>Although bone biopsy has historically been considered the “gold standard” or “standard reference” for the diagnosis of diabetic foot osteomyelitis, some contemporary investigations have provided evidence against this as a single diagnostic test and in support of a combination of clinical, laboratory, and radiographic findings. The objective of this investigation was to measure the level of agreement between several commonly used forms of diagnostic testing for diabetic foot osteomyelitis. A retrospective chart review was performed of 50 consecutive patients admitted to a single tertiary healthcare center with the documented performance of 1) a clinical probe-to-bone test on hospital admission; 2) plain film radiographs prior to any surgical intervention; 3) magnetic resonance imaging prior to any surgical intervention; and an intraoperative excisional bone debridement performed, with samples sent for both 4) histologic analysis and 5) microbiologic analysis. A frequency count of agreement among these 5 tests was performed, and the interobserver (or inter-test) agreement was measured using the kappa statistic. We observed low levels of inter-test agreement between the 5 diagnostic tests (range 42.0%–62.0%), and levels of chance-corrected agreement were well below what would be considered appropriate for a “gold standard” or “standard reference.” Levels of the kappa statistic ranged from 0.0 to 0.220, with most inter-test comparisons falling in the “poor agreement” and “slight agreement” interpretation ranges. The highest level of agreement occurred between the plain film radiographs and magnetic resonance imaging (62.0% agreement and kappa statistic of 0.220). Although it is likely that a combination of clinical, radiographic, and laboratory tests provides the best diagnostic approach for diabetic foot osteomyelitis, the data provided herein indicate that the tests themselves might have high intrinsic levels of unreliability and that the specific combination of tests that might be best used remains unclear.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1067-2516</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1542-2224</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1053/j.jfas.2018.05.010</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30181032</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Biopsy ; bone infection ; Diabetic Foot - diagnosis ; Diabetic Foot - therapy ; diagnostic criteria ; Female ; Hospitalization ; Humans ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging ; Male ; Middle Aged ; nonhealing wound ; Osteomyelitis - diagnosis ; Osteomyelitis - therapy ; osteonecrosis ; Radiography ; Retrospective Studies</subject><ispartof>The Journal of foot and ankle surgery, 2018-11, Vol.57 (6), p.1137-1139</ispartof><rights>2018 the American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons</rights><rights>Copyright © 2018 the American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c389t-7f5084da981b9ba0c1c762b4df6129cc3d261c4d2d8ee92fb6c809dd69a2178b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c389t-7f5084da981b9ba0c1c762b4df6129cc3d261c4d2d8ee92fb6c809dd69a2178b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1067251618302205$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30181032$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Meyr, Andrew J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Seo, Kyung</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Khurana, Jasvir S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Choksi, Rachana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chakraborty, Baidarbhi</creatorcontrib><title>Level of Agreement With a Multi-Test Approach to the Diagnosis of Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis</title><title>The Journal of foot and ankle surgery</title><addtitle>J Foot Ankle Surg</addtitle><description>Although bone biopsy has historically been considered the “gold standard” or “standard reference” for the diagnosis of diabetic foot osteomyelitis, some contemporary investigations have provided evidence against this as a single diagnostic test and in support of a combination of clinical, laboratory, and radiographic findings. The objective of this investigation was to measure the level of agreement between several commonly used forms of diagnostic testing for diabetic foot osteomyelitis. A retrospective chart review was performed of 50 consecutive patients admitted to a single tertiary healthcare center with the documented performance of 1) a clinical probe-to-bone test on hospital admission; 2) plain film radiographs prior to any surgical intervention; 3) magnetic resonance imaging prior to any surgical intervention; and an intraoperative excisional bone debridement performed, with samples sent for both 4) histologic analysis and 5) microbiologic analysis. A frequency count of agreement among these 5 tests was performed, and the interobserver (or inter-test) agreement was measured using the kappa statistic. We observed low levels of inter-test agreement between the 5 diagnostic tests (range 42.0%–62.0%), and levels of chance-corrected agreement were well below what would be considered appropriate for a “gold standard” or “standard reference.” Levels of the kappa statistic ranged from 0.0 to 0.220, with most inter-test comparisons falling in the “poor agreement” and “slight agreement” interpretation ranges. The highest level of agreement occurred between the plain film radiographs and magnetic resonance imaging (62.0% agreement and kappa statistic of 0.220). Although it is likely that a combination of clinical, radiographic, and laboratory tests provides the best diagnostic approach for diabetic foot osteomyelitis, the data provided herein indicate that the tests themselves might have high intrinsic levels of unreliability and that the specific combination of tests that might be best used remains unclear.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Biopsy</subject><subject>bone infection</subject><subject>Diabetic Foot - diagnosis</subject><subject>Diabetic Foot - therapy</subject><subject>diagnostic criteria</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Hospitalization</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Magnetic Resonance Imaging</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>nonhealing wound</subject><subject>Osteomyelitis - diagnosis</subject><subject>Osteomyelitis - therapy</subject><subject>osteonecrosis</subject><subject>Radiography</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><issn>1067-2516</issn><issn>1542-2224</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkU9PGzEQxS1EVSj0C3BAPnLZ7Xj2ny31EkEpSKm4UPWELK89SxztxunaQeLb11Ggx_Y0M9LvPY3eY-xCQCmgqb6sy_VgYokgZAlNCQKO2KloaiwQsT7OO7RdgY1oT9inGNcAiEo2H9lJlSUCKjxlT0t6oZGHgS-eZ6KJNon_8mnFDf-xG5MvHikmvthu52DsiqfA04r4jTfPmxB93Avz0VPylt-GkPhDTBSmVxp98vGcfRjMGOnz2zxjP2-_PV7fFcuH7_fXi2VhK6lS0Q0NyNoZJUWvegNW2K7FvnZDK1BZWzlsha0dOkmkcOhbK0E51yqDopN9dcauDr75zd-7_LGefLQ0jmZDYRc1CtV1UggF_0dBKananFRG8YDaOcQ406C3s5_M_KoF6H0Deq33Deh9AxoanRvIoss3_10_kfsreY88A18PAOVAXjzNOlpPG0vOz2STdsH_y_8Pp4KWig</recordid><startdate>20181101</startdate><enddate>20181101</enddate><creator>Meyr, Andrew J.</creator><creator>Seo, Kyung</creator><creator>Khurana, Jasvir S.</creator><creator>Choksi, Rachana</creator><creator>Chakraborty, Baidarbhi</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20181101</creationdate><title>Level of Agreement With a Multi-Test Approach to the Diagnosis of Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis</title><author>Meyr, Andrew J. ; Seo, Kyung ; Khurana, Jasvir S. ; Choksi, Rachana ; Chakraborty, Baidarbhi</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c389t-7f5084da981b9ba0c1c762b4df6129cc3d261c4d2d8ee92fb6c809dd69a2178b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Biopsy</topic><topic>bone infection</topic><topic>Diabetic Foot - diagnosis</topic><topic>Diabetic Foot - therapy</topic><topic>diagnostic criteria</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Hospitalization</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Magnetic Resonance Imaging</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>nonhealing wound</topic><topic>Osteomyelitis - diagnosis</topic><topic>Osteomyelitis - therapy</topic><topic>osteonecrosis</topic><topic>Radiography</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Meyr, Andrew J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Seo, Kyung</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Khurana, Jasvir S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Choksi, Rachana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chakraborty, Baidarbhi</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The Journal of foot and ankle surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Meyr, Andrew J.</au><au>Seo, Kyung</au><au>Khurana, Jasvir S.</au><au>Choksi, Rachana</au><au>Chakraborty, Baidarbhi</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Level of Agreement With a Multi-Test Approach to the Diagnosis of Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of foot and ankle surgery</jtitle><addtitle>J Foot Ankle Surg</addtitle><date>2018-11-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>57</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>1137</spage><epage>1139</epage><pages>1137-1139</pages><issn>1067-2516</issn><eissn>1542-2224</eissn><abstract>Although bone biopsy has historically been considered the “gold standard” or “standard reference” for the diagnosis of diabetic foot osteomyelitis, some contemporary investigations have provided evidence against this as a single diagnostic test and in support of a combination of clinical, laboratory, and radiographic findings. The objective of this investigation was to measure the level of agreement between several commonly used forms of diagnostic testing for diabetic foot osteomyelitis. A retrospective chart review was performed of 50 consecutive patients admitted to a single tertiary healthcare center with the documented performance of 1) a clinical probe-to-bone test on hospital admission; 2) plain film radiographs prior to any surgical intervention; 3) magnetic resonance imaging prior to any surgical intervention; and an intraoperative excisional bone debridement performed, with samples sent for both 4) histologic analysis and 5) microbiologic analysis. A frequency count of agreement among these 5 tests was performed, and the interobserver (or inter-test) agreement was measured using the kappa statistic. We observed low levels of inter-test agreement between the 5 diagnostic tests (range 42.0%–62.0%), and levels of chance-corrected agreement were well below what would be considered appropriate for a “gold standard” or “standard reference.” Levels of the kappa statistic ranged from 0.0 to 0.220, with most inter-test comparisons falling in the “poor agreement” and “slight agreement” interpretation ranges. The highest level of agreement occurred between the plain film radiographs and magnetic resonance imaging (62.0% agreement and kappa statistic of 0.220). Although it is likely that a combination of clinical, radiographic, and laboratory tests provides the best diagnostic approach for diabetic foot osteomyelitis, the data provided herein indicate that the tests themselves might have high intrinsic levels of unreliability and that the specific combination of tests that might be best used remains unclear.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>30181032</pmid><doi>10.1053/j.jfas.2018.05.010</doi><tpages>3</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1067-2516
ispartof The Journal of foot and ankle surgery, 2018-11, Vol.57 (6), p.1137-1139
issn 1067-2516
1542-2224
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2099896229
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete
subjects Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Biopsy
bone infection
Diabetic Foot - diagnosis
Diabetic Foot - therapy
diagnostic criteria
Female
Hospitalization
Humans
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Male
Middle Aged
nonhealing wound
Osteomyelitis - diagnosis
Osteomyelitis - therapy
osteonecrosis
Radiography
Retrospective Studies
title Level of Agreement With a Multi-Test Approach to the Diagnosis of Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-11T20%3A49%3A42IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Level%20of%20Agreement%20With%20a%20Multi-Test%20Approach%20to%20the%20Diagnosis%20of%20Diabetic%20Foot%20Osteomyelitis&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20foot%20and%20ankle%20surgery&rft.au=Meyr,%20Andrew%20J.&rft.date=2018-11-01&rft.volume=57&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1137&rft.epage=1139&rft.pages=1137-1139&rft.issn=1067-2516&rft.eissn=1542-2224&rft_id=info:doi/10.1053/j.jfas.2018.05.010&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2197781190%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2099896229&rft_id=info:pmid/30181032&rft_els_id=S1067251618302205&rfr_iscdi=true