Ji Dai1, Wenjie Jiang2, Zhigang Min3, Jian Yang4, Yongfei Tan5, Tieliang Ma6, Zhijun Ge1. 1. Department of Critical Care Medicine, the Affiliated Yixing Hospital of Jiangsu University, Yixing, Jiangsu, China. 2. Department of Anesthesiology, the Affiliated Yixing Hospital of Jiangsu University, Yixing, Jiangsu, China. 3. Department of Radiology, the Affiliated Yixing Hospital of Jiangsu University, Yixing, Jiangsu, China. 4. Department of Oncology, the Affiliated Yixing Hospital of Jiangsu University, Yixing, Jiangsu, China. 5. Department of Cardiac & Thoracic Surgery, the Affiliated Yixing Hospital of Jiangsu University, Yixing, Jiangsu, China. 6. Central Laboratory, the Affiliated Yixing Hospital of Jiangsu University, Yixing, Jiangsu, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neutrophil CD64 (nCD64) is a promising marker for diagnosing bacterial infections. Several studies have investigated the performance of nCD64 for diagnosing neonatal sepsis and the results are variable. Interest in nCD64 for detecting serious bacterial infections is increasing rapidly. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to carry out a meta-analysis to systematically evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of nCD64 in neonatal sepsis. As far as the authors know, no previous studies have undertaken this. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A review of studies from Pubmed, Embase and the Cochrane Library, from inception through June 2015, found 7 studies (involving 2213 neonates) fulfilling the inclusion criteria. These 7 studies were subjected to a bivariate meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity and a summary receiveroperating characteristic (SROC) curve; I2 was used to test heterogeneity, and the source of heterogeneity was investigated by influence analysis and meta-regression. RESULTS: The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 80% (95%CI, 69-88%) and 83% (95%CI, 71-90%), respectively. The area under the SROC curve (AUC) was 0.88 (95%CI, 0.85-0.91). The studies had substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 87.1%). CONCLUSIONS: The results showed that nCD64 is a reliable biomarker for diagnosing neonatal sepsis (AUC = 0.88).
BACKGROUND: Neutrophil CD64 (nCD64) is a promising marker for diagnosing bacterial infections. Several studies have investigated the performance of nCD64 for diagnosing neonatal sepsis and the results are variable. Interest in nCD64 for detecting serious bacterial infections is increasing rapidly. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to carry out a meta-analysis to systematically evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of nCD64 in neonatal sepsis. As far as the authors know, no previous studies have undertaken this. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A review of studies from Pubmed, Embase and the Cochrane Library, from inception through June 2015, found 7 studies (involving 2213 neonates) fulfilling the inclusion criteria. These 7 studies were subjected to a bivariate meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity and a summary receiveroperating characteristic (SROC) curve; I2 was used to test heterogeneity, and the source of heterogeneity was investigated by influence analysis and meta-regression. RESULTS: The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 80% (95%CI, 69-88%) and 83% (95%CI, 71-90%), respectively. The area under the SROC curve (AUC) was 0.88 (95%CI, 0.85-0.91). The studies had substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 87.1%). CONCLUSIONS: The results showed that nCD64 is a reliable biomarker for diagnosing neonatal sepsis (AUC = 0.88).
Authors: Alberto García-Salido; A Martínez de Azagra-Garde; M A García-Teresa; G De Lama Caro-Patón; M Iglesias-Bouzas; M Nieto-Moro; I Leoz-Gordillo; C Niño-Taravilla; M Sierra-Colomina; G J Melen; M Ramírez-Orellana; A Serrano-González Journal: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis Date: 2019-02-02 Impact factor: 3.267
Authors: Raisa Balbuena-Merle; Susanna A Curtis; Lesley Devine; David R Gibb; Matthew S Karafin; Chance John Luckey; Christopher A Tormey; Alexa J Siddon; John D Roberts; Jeanne E Hendrickson Journal: Transfusion Date: 2019-07-29 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Ata Mahmoodpoor; Seyedpouya Paknezhad; Kamran Shadvar; Hadi Hamishehkar; Ali Akbar Movassaghpour; Sarvin Sanaie; Ali Akbar Ghamari; Hassan Soleimanpour Journal: Anesth Pain Med Date: 2018-12-05
Authors: Heba E Hashem; Sherin A El Masry; Amira M Mokhtar; Eman A Ismail; Noureldin M Abdelaal Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2020-08-07 Impact factor: 3.411