Shan Cong1, Tiangang Ma1, Xin Di1, Chang Tian1, Min Zhao1, Ke Wang2. 1. Department of Respiratory Medicine, The Second Hospital of Jilin University, 218 Ziqiang Street, Nanguan District, Changchun, 130041, Jilin Province, China. 2. Department of Respiratory Medicine, The Second Hospital of Jilin University, 218 Ziqiang Street, Nanguan District, Changchun, 130041, Jilin Province, China. wke@jlu.edu.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate the accuracy of neutrophil CD64, procalcitonin (PCT), and interleukin-6 (IL-6) as markers for the diagnosis of sepsis in adult patients. METHODS: Various databases were searched to collect published studies on the diagnosis of sepsis in adult patients using neutrophil CD64, PCT, and IL-6 levels. Utilizing the Stata SE 15.0 software, forest plots and the area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curves were drawn. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated. RESULTS: Fifty-four articles were included in the study. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUC of neutrophil CD64 for the diagnosis of sepsis were 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81-0.92), 0.88 (95% CI, 0.83-0.91), and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.91-0.96), respectively. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUC of PCT for the diagnosis of sepsis were 0.82 (95% CI, 0.78-0.85), 0.78 (95% CI, 0.74-0.82), and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.83-0.89), respectively. Subgroup analysis showed that the AUC for PCT diagnosis of intensive care unit (ICU) sepsis was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.83-0.89) and the AUC for PCT diagnosis of non-ICU sepsis was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.78-0.85). The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUC of IL-6 for the diagnosis of sepsis were 0.72 (95% CI, 0.65-0.78), 0.70 (95% CI, 0.62-0.76), and 0.77 (95% CI, 0.73-0.80), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Of the three biomarkers studied, neutrophil CD64 showed the highest diagnostic value for sepsis, followed by PCT, and IL-6. On the other hand, PCT showed a better diagnostic potential for the diagnosis of sepsis in patients with severe conditions compared with that in patients with non-severe conditions.
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate the accuracy of neutrophil CD64, procalcitonin (PCT), and interleukin-6 (IL-6) as markers for the diagnosis of sepsis in adult patients. METHODS: Various databases were searched to collect published studies on the diagnosis of sepsis in adult patients using neutrophil CD64, PCT, and IL-6 levels. Utilizing the Stata SE 15.0 software, forest plots and the area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curves were drawn. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated. RESULTS: Fifty-four articles were included in the study. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUC of neutrophil CD64 for the diagnosis of sepsis were 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81-0.92), 0.88 (95% CI, 0.83-0.91), and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.91-0.96), respectively. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUC of PCT for the diagnosis of sepsis were 0.82 (95% CI, 0.78-0.85), 0.78 (95% CI, 0.74-0.82), and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.83-0.89), respectively. Subgroup analysis showed that the AUC for PCT diagnosis of intensive care unit (ICU) sepsis was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.83-0.89) and the AUC for PCT diagnosis of non-ICU sepsis was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.78-0.85). The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUC of IL-6 for the diagnosis of sepsis were 0.72 (95% CI, 0.65-0.78), 0.70 (95% CI, 0.62-0.76), and 0.77 (95% CI, 0.73-0.80), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Of the three biomarkers studied, neutrophil CD64 showed the highest diagnostic value for sepsis, followed by PCT, and IL-6. On the other hand, PCT showed a better diagnostic potential for the diagnosis of sepsis in patients with severe conditions compared with that in patients with non-severe conditions.
Authors: G N Matwiyoff; J D Prahl; R J Miller; J J Carmichael; D E Amundson; G Seda; M Daheshia Journal: Inflamm Res Date: 2012-02-22 Impact factor: 4.575
Authors: Mitchell M Levy; Mitchell P Fink; John C Marshall; Edward Abraham; Derek Angus; Deborah Cook; Jonathan Cohen; Steven M Opal; Jean-Louis Vincent; Graham Ramsay Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Julian M Williams; Jaimi H Greenslade; Juliet V McKenzie; Kevin Chu; Anthony F T Brown; Jeffrey Lipman Journal: Chest Date: 2016-11-19 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Matthew P Cheng; Robert Stenstrom; Katryn Paquette; Sarah N Stabler; Murtaza Akhter; Adam C Davidson; Marko Gavric; Alexander Lawandi; Rehman Jinah; Zahid Saeed; Koray Demir; Kelly Huang; Amirali Mahpour; Chris Shamatutu; Chelsea Caya; Jean-Marc Troquet; Greg Clark; Cedric P Yansouni; David Sweet Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2019-09-17 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Kristina E Rudd; Sarah Charlotte Johnson; Kareha M Agesa; Katya Anne Shackelford; Derrick Tsoi; Daniel Rhodes Kievlan; Danny V Colombara; Kevin S Ikuta; Niranjan Kissoon; Simon Finfer; Carolin Fleischmann-Struzek; Flavia R Machado; Konrad K Reinhart; Kathryn Rowan; Christopher W Seymour; R Scott Watson; T Eoin West; Fatima Marinho; Simon I Hay; Rafael Lozano; Alan D Lopez; Derek C Angus; Christopher J L Murray; Mohsen Naghavi Journal: Lancet Date: 2020-01-18 Impact factor: 202.731
Authors: Rúben Araújo; Luís F N Bento; Tiago A H Fonseca; Cristiana P Von Rekowski; Bernardo Ribeiro da Cunha; Cecília R C Calado Journal: Metabolites Date: 2022-01-19
Authors: Christian Gosset; Jacques Foguenne; Mickaël Simul; Olivier Tomsin; Hayet Ammar; Nathalie Layios; Paul B Massion; Pierre Damas; André Gothot Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-10-13 Impact factor: 4.379