| Title |
The accuracy of presepsin for the diagnosis of sepsis from SIRS: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Intensive Care, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13613-015-0089-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Zhongjun Zheng, Libing Jiang, Ligang Ye, Yuzhi Gao, Luping Tang, Mao Zhang |
| Abstract |
Sepsis is a common condition that has a high mortality and morbidity that need prompt diagnosis and treatment. Biomarkers like Soluble CD14 subtype (sCD14-ST, presepsin) may be useful in identifying patients with sepsis and its diagnostic superiority has been confirmed by several preliminary studies. The aim of this study was systematically and quantitatively to evaluate the value of presepsin for the diagnosis of sepsis through the method of meta-analysis. Four major databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Web of Knowledge, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched from inception to March 2015. Two investigators conducted the processes of literature search, study selection, data extraction, and quality evaluation independently. And the original data were extracted from all eligible individual studies to construct two-by-two tables. A total of eight studies comprising 1757 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio were 0.77 (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.75-0.80), 0.73 (95 % CI 0.69-0.77), and 14.25 (95 % CI 8.66-23.42), respectively. The summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) area under the curve (AUC) was 0.8598. The subgroup analysis based on excluding the outliers showed that the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.85 (95 % CI 0.81-0.89) and 0.65 (95 % CI 0.59-0.70), respectively. The AUC was 0.8213 with no significant heterogeneity. Presepsin has moderate diagnostic capacity for the detection of sepsis. Further research of presepsin is needed before widespread use in emergency department. And presepsin in combination with other laboratory biomarkers in diagnosing sepsis may be the focus of future studies. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Hungary | 1 | 1% |
| Denmark | 1 | 1% |
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 68 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 13% |
| Other | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 14 | 20% |
| Unknown | 20 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 51% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 3% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 23 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 14 December 2015.
All research outputs
#19,054,237
of 23,613,071 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#939
of 1,074 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#284,580
of 391,820 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#24
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,613,071 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,074 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.2. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 391,820 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.