Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34912626›Full record

ReviewCureus2021

Comparing the Diagnostic Accuracy of Procalcitonin and C-Reactive Protein in Neonatal Sepsis: A Systematic Review.

NagaSpurthy Reddy Anugu, Safeera Khan

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

NagaSpurthy Reddy AnuguPediatrics, California Institute of Behavioral Neurosciences & Psychology, Fairfield, USA.
Safeera KhanInternal Medicine, California Institute of Behavioral Neurosciences & Psychology, Fairfield, USA.
California Institute of Behavioral Neurosciences and Psychology (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neonatal sepsis remains a significant diagnostic challenge in newborn care. It has the potential to be disastrous, but precise diagnosis is difficult. No biomarker has yet demonstrated sufficient diagnostic accuracy to rule out sepsis when clinical suspicion exists. As a result, neonates with suspected sepsis are treated with empiric antibiotics. These unnecessary antibiotics promote bacterial antibiotic resistance, raise economic costs, and alter the composition of the gut microbiota. This study aimed to determine the diagnostic accuracy of procalcitonin in the prompt diagnosis of neonatal sepsis. Articles were systematically screened in PubMed/MEDLINE, PubMed Central (PMC), and ScienceDirect, using keywords and Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms to identify the relevant articles. Additionally, one article from the Indian Journal of Applied Research was also used. Inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied post article screening via title and abstracts. Quality appraisal check was done using the Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles (SANRA) checklist, A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) checklist, and Newcastle-Ottawa checklist. Six related articles were strictly reviewed. Procalcitonin is a useful biomarker in the early diagnosis of neonatal sepsis. Because procalcitonin has a better correlation with proven sepsis and is an early biomarker in diagnosing neonatal sepsis, it should be included in the overall sepsis evaluation. Future clinical trials on optimal cut-off levels of procalcitonin with shifting neonatal ages and its use in the post-op setting are needed.

Indexed as

biomarkersc-reactive proteinneonateprocalcitoninsepsis

Identifiers

PMID34912626
PMCPMC8664372
OpenAlexW3211531902

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.