The Leukocyte Esterase Test Strip Is a Poor Rule-Out Test for Periprosthetic Joint Infection.

BACKGROUND: The urinary leukocyte esterase (LE) test strip has been suggested as a good screening test for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The purpose of this study is to compare the diagnostic profile of LE assays from different manufacturers and determine whether the LE test strip is a good rule-out test. METHODS: Synovial fluid samples (N = 344), sent to 1 laboratory for PJI testing, were used in this prospective study. Four different tests for synovial fluid LE were simultaneously evaluated for their performance in detecting white blood cell (WBC) positive samples (>3000 cells/µL). RESULTS: Both neutrophil elastase immunoassays demonstrated greater sensitivity than urinary LE test strips (92.0% and 90.8% vs 72.4% and 80.3%; all P < 0.011). Fifty-three percent of false-negative urinary LE test strip results clearly missed the presence of elevated levels of synovial fluid LE. Invalid urinary LE test strip results were 4-fold more likely among WBC (+) compared with WBC (-) samples (27.0% vs 6.8%; P < 0.0001). The combined failure to detect an elevated WBC count, because of either false-negative or invalid results, was 47.1% and 41.4% for the Roche and Siemens test strips, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study agrees with the existing literature demonstrating that the LE test strips are among the lowest sensitivity tests for PJI. The urinary LE tests strips should not be used to rule-out PJI, as they often fail to detect abundant levels of LE in synovial fluid. Instead, it is more appropriate to use the (++) LE test strip result as a secondary confirmatory rule-in test for PJI because of its high specificity.

Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, assistive technology and information and communication technology requirements: where do we stand on implementation?

PURPOSE: This article presents 2013 data from a survey provided by G3ict and Disabled Peoples International (DPI). The Progress Report identifies the degree that each of the CRPD dispositions on ATs and ICTs accessibility are enacted in local laws, policies and regulations and their impacts. METHOD: The initial methodology used to develop the survey involved several steps. First, a systematic review of CRPD AT and ICT technology requirements was conducted. Second, 57 variables were identified. Third, variables were grouped into three clusters representing countries': (a) legal, regulatory and programmatic commitments; (b) capacity to implement; and (c) actual implementation results. Surveys were completed by experts in a total of 74 countries. RESULTS: With respect to select CRPD AT and ICT dispositions, respondent countries report an: (a) average degree of compliance within their general legal and regulatory framework at 66%; (b) average 29% of the capacity to implement; and (c) average degree of implementation and impact of 42%. Implications for Rehabilitation Survey results reflect low levels of ratifying countries implementation of laws, policies or programs that promote awareness-raising and training programs about the CRPD and its AT and ICT technology requirements. Implication 1: CRPD ratifying countries need to promote disability-inclusive AT and ICT policies and programs identified as priority areas by key stakeholders Implication 2: Government leaders and key policymakers need to address gaps in capacity building such as professional training of professionals in the areas of AT and ICT accessibility and programming through disability-inclusive cooperative development practices.