↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of diagnostic accuracy in sepsis between presepsin, procalcitonin, and C-reactive protein: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
136 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
161 Mendeley
Title
Comparison of diagnostic accuracy in sepsis between presepsin, procalcitonin, and C-reactive protein: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13613-017-0316-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chin-Chieh Wu, Hao-Min Lan, Shih-Tsung Han, Chung-Hsien Chaou, Chun-Fu Yeh, Su-Hsun Liu, Chih-Huang Li, Gerald N. Blaney, Zhen-Ying Liu, Kuan-Fu Chen

Abstract

The soluble cluster of differentiation 14 (or presepsin) is a free fragment of glycoprotein expressed on monocytes and macrophages. Although many studies have been conducted recently, the diagnostic performance of presepsin for sepsis remains debated. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature to assess the accuracy of presepsin for the diagnosis of sepsis in adult patients and compared the performance between presepsin, C-reactive protein (CRP), and procalcitonin (PCT). A comprehensive systemic search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar for studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of presepsin for sepsis until January 2017. The hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic method was used to pool individual sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Eighteen studies, comprising 3470 patients, met our inclusion criteria. The pooled diagnosis sensitivity and specificity of presepsin for sepsis were 0.84 (95% CI 0.80-0.87) and 0.76 (95% CI 0.67-0.82), respectively. Furthermore, the pooled DOR, PLR, NLR, and AUC were 16 (95% CI 10-25), 3.4 (95% CI 2.5-4.6), 0.22 (95% CI 0.17-0.27), and 0.88 (95% CI 0.85-0.90), respectively. Significant heterogeneity was found in both sensitivities (Cochrane Q = 137.43, p < 0.001, I (2) = 87.63%) and specificities (Cochrane Q = 180.76, p < 0.001, I (2) = 90.60%). Additionally, we found no significant difference between presepsin and PCT (AUC 0.87 vs. 0.86) or CRP (AUC 0.85 vs. 0.85). However, for studies conducted in ICU, the pooled sensitivity of presepsin was found to be higher than PCT (0.88, 95% CI 0.82-0.92 vs. 0.75, 95% CI 0.68-0.81), while the pooled specificity of presepsin was lower than PCT (0.58, 95% CI 0.42-0.73 vs. 0.75, 95% CI 0.65-0.83). Based on the results of our meta-analysis, presepsin is a promising marker for diagnosis of sepsis as PCT or CRP, but its results should be interpreted more carefully and cautiously since too few studies were included and those studies had high heterogeneity between them. In addition, continuing re-evaluation during the course of sepsis is advisable.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 161 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 161 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 13%
Other 15 9%
Researcher 15 9%
Student > Postgraduate 14 9%
Student > Bachelor 12 7%
Other 38 24%
Unknown 46 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 65 40%
Immunology and Microbiology 9 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 3%
Neuroscience 3 2%
Other 12 7%
Unknown 62 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 January 2018.
All research outputs
#7,259,414
of 22,925,760 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#635
of 1,049 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,287
of 315,178 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#10
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,925,760 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,049 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.8. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,178 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.