Given a passage, construct a question on the basis of the information present in the passage. Construct the question in such a way that (i) it is unambiguous, (ii) it is answerable from the passage, (iii) its answer is unique (iv) it answer uses text phrases from the passage. Avoid creating questions that (i) can't be answered correctly without actually understanding the passage and (ii) uses the same words or phrases given in the passage.

Q: To compare the efficacy and safety of prophylactic modalities for heterotopic ossification prevention after elbow and acetabular surgeries.', 'The retrospective chart review was conducted at the Aga Khan University Hospital and comprised record of patients who underwent open reduction and internal fixation for elbow and acetabular fractures between 2010 and 2013. Data was classified into three groups: Group A patients had received single dose of radiotherapy; Group B patients had received indomethacin, and Group C patients had not received any prophylaxis. Outcome variables included time-to-fracture healing, heterotopic ossification, non-union and wound infection.', 'Of the 104patients 70(67.3%) had elbow fractures and 34(32.7%) had acetabular fractures. Out of the 70patients with elbow fractures, 28(27%) were in Group A, 24(23%) in Group B, and 18(17%) in Group C. In Group A, 4(22%) patients had wound infection compared to 1(5.5%) patient in Group C (p=0.131). One (4%) patient in Group B and 1(5.5%) in Group C developed heterotopic ossification (p=0.486). Non-union occurred in 1(4%) patient in Group B and 1(5.5%) in Group C. Out of the 34 patients with acetabular fractures, 11(32.3%) were in Group A, 10(29.4%) in Group B, and 13(38.2%) in Group C. In Group A, 2(18.2%) patients developed wound infection. Only 1(7.6%) patient in Group C developed heterotopic ossification.

A: Do prophylaxis against heterotopic ossification after elbow and acetabular fractures - Do we really need it?
****
Q: To develop a scale and survey the measurement of patient adherence and patient recruitment, and to explore how these methods impact the results in randomized controlled trials of interventions to improve patient adherence to medications.', 'Analytic survey of a purposively selected sample of patient adherence intervention trials from a systematic review, assessing the quality of adherence measurement and patient recruitment methods.', 'We identified 44 different measures of adherence, with qualities ranging from valid and objective to unreliable and subjective. The median overall quality of measures of adherence was 5 (interquartile range [IQR], 3; range, 0-9, 9 is high quality). The quality of the measures was associated with variation in the estimate of adherence (Spearman r\xa0=\xa00.66; 95% confidence interval: 0.39, 0.83). The median overall quality of patient recruitment methods was 2 (IQR, 1; maximum score 6, higher is better). There was no significant correlation between the power of the trial to detect an effect and the quality of the patient recruitment methods.

A: Are adherence measurement and patient recruitment methods poor in intervention trials to improve patient adherence?
****
Q: When deciding upon the best treatment strategy in revision arthroplasty, it is absolutely crucial to use the best possible preoperative detection whether a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is present or not. New molecular markers investigated in serum samples and synovial fluid can help to improve the preoperative diagnosis. In 2001, a novel IL-6 lateral flow immunoassay testing device was introduced which has never been tested in synovial fluid so far.', 'For our study we investigated whether the test can be used safely, feasibly and time effectively with synovial fluid gathered from potentially infected THAs or TKAs and whether the already published cutoff for IL-6 in synovial fluid predicting a PJI can be reproduced using the QuickLine IL-6 immunoassay.', 'After ethic approval and within the scope of a prospective controlled trial we investigated 26 patients (m = 9, 34.6%; f= 17, 65.4%) with n = 13 (50%) potentially infected total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and n = 13 (50%) suspected PJIs of total knee arthroplasties (TKAs). Sterile aspirated synovial fluid was examined for total leukocyte count and cell differentiation by a blood count analyzer in body fluid mode as well as for IL-6 (Immulite, Siemens Medical Solutions Diagnostics GmbH, Eschborn, Germany). Another part of the joint aspirate was tested using the QuickLine IL-6 Test by Milenia Biotec (Milenia Biotec, Gießen, Germany).', 'The mean concentration of IL-6 as determined from our reference laboratory testing (Siemens Immulight) for aseptic cases was 1,219 pg/mL (SD 1,369 pg/mL, min 134 pg/mL-max 4,214 pg/mL). The mean IL-6 concentration measured via the IL-6 QuickLine for aseptic cases was 410 pg/mL (SD 371 pg/mL, min 100 pg/mL-max 1562 pg/mL). The test showed no false negative or false positive results in the cases tested. In six patients, PJI was considered proven. The QuickLine Test indicated IL 6 concentrations > 10,000 pg/mL in these cases without further quantification above this maximum detection threshold. Results from the QuickLine Test and the laboratory tests were matched and a non-linear best fit curve (log-log-curve) was applied. The subsequent Spearman correlation showed a correlation coefficient of r = 0.92 (95% CI 0.81-0.97) which corresponds to a two-tailed p-value of < 0.0001, respectively. As a primary finding we were able to show that the Milenia QuickLine IL-6 Test can be used safely, feasibly and time effectively with synovial fluid gathered intraoperatively from potentially infected THAs or TKAs. The test as provided worked well in 84.6% of the samples tested and failed only due to very viscous synovial fluid. As a secondary result we found that the previously published cut-off for IL-6 in synovial fluid predicting a PJI with a sensitivity of 46.88% and a specificity of 97.62% can be reproduced using the QuickLine IL-6 immunoassay.

A:
Does the QuickLine IL-6 lateral flow immunoassay improve the rapid intraoperative diagnosis of suspected periprosthetic joint infections?
****