ArticleTanaffos2015
Can Procalcitonin Add to the Prognostic Power of the Severity Scoring System in Adults with Pneumonia?
Article in Tanaffos, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Changes of C-reactive protein and Procalcitonin after four weeks of treatment in patients with pulmonary TB.Journal of clinical tuberculosis and other mycobacterial diseases · 2023Article
- A literature review of severity scores for adults with influenza or community-acquired pneumonia - implications for influenza vaccines and therapeutics.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2021Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe first decision confronting clinicians in the management of patients with community acquired pneumonia (CAP) is whether the patient is to be hospitalized or not. We sought to validate the pneumonia scoring system and assess the power of procalcitonin (PCT) level to predict in-hospital mortality (IHM) and intensive vasopressor and respiratory support (IVRS) requirements in patients with CAP. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 120 patients with CAP were evaluated for severity of illness based on the defined scoring systems including pneumonia severity index (PSI), confusion, urea, respiratory rate, blood pressure, age>65 (CURB-65), confusion, respiratory rate, blood pressure, age>65 (CRB-65), infectious diseases society of America/American thoracic society 2007 criteria (IDSA/ATS 2007) and systolic blood pressure, multilobar infiltrate, albumin, respiratory rate, tachycardia, confusion, low oxygen, low pH (SMART-COP). Demographic, clinical, laboratory and radiographic data were collected prospectively. The accuracy of each scoring system in predicting IVRS requirement and IHM was assessed from the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC). Level of PCT was determined by semi-quantitative PCT-Q method (BRAHMS). The accuracy of the defined scoring systems, PCT levels and each scoring system plus PCT levels in prediction of IHM and IVRS requirement was analyzed.
resultsThe accuracy of PCT levels in predicting IHM and IVRS requirement based on AUC was 0.542 and 0.658, respectively and the best threshold was ≥ 2ng/mL for both of them. Adding the level of procalcitonin to different scoring systems (based on the defined scoring systems) improved the accuracy of all systems.
conclusionWe do not suggest using the PCT level alone as a predictor for mortality and IVRS requirement. Instead, we suggest PSI plus PCT and IDSA/ATS 2007 plus PCT as accurate predictors for IHM and SMART-COP plus PCT for IVRS requirement in patients who presented with CAP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26528363PMC4629435W2185720359What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.