Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36915043›Full record

ArticleBMC emergency medicine2023

Point-of-care neutrophil CD64 as a rule in diagnostic test for bacterial infections in the emergency department.

N L M van de Ven, S H Bongers, R Spijkerman, L Koenderman, L P H Leenen, F Hietbrink, COVPACH study group

Open access · goldFull text read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC emergency medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

N L M van de VenDepartment of Trauma Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
S H BongersDepartment of Trauma Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
R SpijkermanCenter for Translational Immunology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
L KoendermanCenter for Translational Immunology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
L P H LeenenDepartment of Trauma Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
F HietbrinkDepartment of Trauma Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. F.Hietbrink@umcutrecht.nl.
COVPACH study group
University Medical Center Utrecht · NLUtrecht University · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionBacterial infections are frequently seen in the emergency department (ED), but can be difficult to distinguish from viral infections and some non-infectious diseases. Common biomarkers such as c-reactive protein (CRP) and white blood cell (WBC) counts fail to aid in the differential diagnosis. Neutrophil CD64 (nCD64), an IgG receptor, is suggested to be more specific for bacterial infections. This study investigated if nCD64 can distinguish bacterial infections from other infectious and non-infectious diseases in the ED.

methodsAll COVID-19 suspected patients who visited the ED and for which a definitive diagnosis was made, were included. Blood was analyzed using an automated flow cytometer within 2 h after presentation. Patients were divided into a bacterial, viral, and non-infectious disease group. We determined the diagnostic value of nCD64 and compared this to those of CRP and WBC counts.

resultsOf the 291 patients presented at the ED, 182 patients were included with a definitive diagnosis (bacterial infection n = 78; viral infection n = 64; non-infectious disease n = 40). ROC-curves were plotted, with AUCs of 0.71 [95%CI: 0.64-0.79], 0.77 [0.69-0.84] and 0.64 [0.55-0.73] for nCD64, WBC counts and CRP, respectively. In the bacterial group, nCD64 MFI was significantly higher compared to the other groups (p < 0.01). A cut-off of 9.4 AU MFI for nCD64 corresponded with a positive predictive value of 1.00 (sensitivity of 0.27, a specificity of 1.00, and an NPV of 0.64). Furthermore, a diagnostic algorithm was constructed which can serve as an example of what a future biomarker prediction model could look like.

conclusionFor patients in the ED presenting with a suspected infection, nCD64 measured with automatic flow cytometry, has a high specificity and positive predictive value for diagnosing a bacterial infection. However, a low nCD64 cannot rule out a bacterial infection. For future purposes, nCD64 should be combined with additional tests to form an algorithm that adequately diagnoses infectious diseases.

Indexed as

Bacterial InfectionsCOVID-19Noncommunicable DiseasesBiomarkersCOVID-19 TestingC-Reactive ProteinDiagnostic Tests, RoutineEmergency Service, HospitalHumansNeutrophilsPoint-of-Care SystemsBiomarkersC-Reactive ProteinBacterial infectionsCOVID-19InflammationnCD64Point of care immunologyViral infections

Identifiers

PMID36915043
PMCPMC10010956
OpenAlexW4324130120

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read43
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.