Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24475269›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Biomarkers and molecular analysis to improve bloodstream infection diagnostics in an emergency care unit.

Anne J M Loonen, Cornelis P C de Jager, Janna Tosserams, Ron Kusters, Mirrian Hilbink, Peter C Wever, Adriaan J C van den Brule

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 84 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
84citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

84 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

24 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Anne J M LoonenJeroen Bosch Hospital, Laboratory of Molecular Diagnostics, 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands ; Fontys University of Applied Sciences, Department of Medical Molecular Diagnostics, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Cornelis P C de JagerJeroen Bosch Hospital, Department of Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine, 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands.
Janna TosseramsJeroen Bosch Hospital, Department of Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine, 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands.
Ron KustersJeroen Bosch Hospital, Department of Clinical Chemistry and Haematology, 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands.
Mirrian HilbinkJeroen Bosch Hospital, Jeroen Bosch Academy, 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands.
Peter C WeverJeroen Bosch Hospital, Department of Medical Microbiology and Infection Control, 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands.
Adriaan J C van den BruleJeroen Bosch Hospital, Laboratory of Molecular Diagnostics, 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands ; Fontys University of Applied Sciences, Department of Medical Molecular Diagnostics, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Molecular pathogen detection from blood is still expensive and the exact clinical value remains to be determined. The use of biomarkers may assist in preselecting patients for immediate molecular testing besides blood culture. In this study, 140 patients with ≥ 2 SIRS criteria and clinical signs of infection presenting at the emergency department of our hospital were included. C-reactive protein (CRP), neutrophil-lymphocyte count ratio (NLCR), procalcitonin (PCT) and soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) levels were determined. One ml EDTA blood was obtained and selective pathogen DNA isolation was performed with MolYsis (Molzym). DNA samples were analysed for the presence of pathogens, using both the MagicPlex Sepsis Test (Seegene) and SepsiTest (Molzym), and results were compared to blood cultures. Fifteen patients had to be excluded from the study, leaving 125 patients for further analysis. Of the 125 patient samples analysed, 27 presented with positive blood cultures of which 7 were considered to be contaminants. suPAR, PCT, and NLCR values were significantly higher in patients with positive blood cultures compared to patients without (p < 0.001). Receiver operating characteristic curves of the 4 biomarkers for differentiating bacteremia from non-bacteremia showed the highest area under the curve (AUC) for PCT (0.806 (95% confidence interval 0.699-0.913)). NLCR, suPAR and CRP resulted in an AUC of 0.770, 0.793, and 0.485, respectively. When compared to blood cultures, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for SepsiTest and MagicPlex Sepsis Test were 11%, 96%, 43%, 80%, and 37%, 77%, 30%, 82%, respectively. In conclusion, both molecular assays perform poorly when one ml whole blood is used from emergency care unit patients. NLCR is a cheap, fast, easy to determine, and rapidly available biomarker, and therefore seems most promising in differentiating BSI from non-BSI patients for subsequent pathogen identification using molecular diagnostics.

Indexed as

Area Under CurveBiomarkersCalcitoninCalcitonin Gene-Related PeptideC-Reactive ProteinEmergency Medical ServicesHumansLymphocyte CountNeutrophilsProtein PrecursorsReceptors, Urokinase Plasminogen ActivatorROC CurveSensitivity and SpecificitySystemic Inflammatory Response SyndromeBiomarkersCALCA protein, humanCalcitoninCalcitonin Gene-Related PeptideC-Reactive ProteinPLAUR protein, humanProtein PrecursorsReceptors, Urokinase Plasminogen Activator

Identifiers

PMID24475269
PMCPMC3903623

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.