ArticleAnaesthesiology intensive therapy2021
Comparison of neutrophil CD64 and monocytic HLA-DR with existing biomarkers for the diagnosis and prognosis of sepsis.
Article in Anaesthesiology intensive therapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- EBV reactivation and immunoparalysis indicate a harmful immune endotype in sepsis.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Article
- Automated, Point-of-Care mobile flow cytometry: Bringing the laboratory to the sample.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Diagnostic Value of Neutrophil CD64 in Sepsis Patients in the Intensive Care Unit: A Cross-Sectional Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Use of machine learning-based integration to develop a monocyte differentiation-related signature for improving prognosis in patients with sepsis.Molecular medicine (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2023Article
- SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia and bacterial pneumonia patients differ in a second hit immune response model.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Comparison of the effects of vitamin C and thiamine on refractory hypotension in patients with sepsis: A randomized controlled trial.International journal of critical illness and injury scienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWe measured the expression of serum procalcitonin (PCT), quantitative C-reactive protein (QCRP), neutrophil CD64 (nCD64) and monocytic HLA-DR (mHLA-DR) sequentially in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and correlated the expression of these biomarkers to predict development of sepsis and its outcome. MATERIAL AND
methodsConsenting adult patients of more than 18 years of age, who developed sepsis during an observation period of 20 days with a sequential organ failure assessment score (SOFA) score ≥ 2 or those who already had sepsis at admission to the ICU were included. SOFA score, serum PCT, QCRP, nCD64 and mHLA-DR assays were recorded on the first and third day of admission to the ICU. A total of 27 sepsis cases and 24 controls (all admitted to the ICU) were included in the study.
resultsSOFA score, serum PCT, QCRP, nCD64 were significantly higher and mHLA-DR was significantly lower in cases compared to controls, both on day 1 and day 3. There was no significant difference in any of the parameters between day 1 and day 3. PCT and nCD64, both with sensitivity of 77.8% and specificity of 70.8% (95% CI, 0.73-0.95), had the best predictive value for diagnosing sepsis. Lower mHLA-DR (< 5000/cell) was associated with higher mortality among cases.
conclusionsSerum PCT and nCD64 are the best biomarkers with similar sensitivity and specificity in detecting sepsis. mHLA-DR could have a role in prognosis as lower levels were associated with higher mortality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.