Observational studyPloS one2023
Consistently low levels of histidine-rich glycoprotein as a new prognostic biomarker for sepsis: A multicenter prospective observational study.
Observational study in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antithrombin regulates neutrophil activities through the stimulation of C-type lectin family 1A.Blood vessels, thrombosis & hemostasis · 2025Article
- LASSO regression shows histidine and sphingosine 1 phosphate are linked to both sepsis mortality and endothelial damage.European journal of medical research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFew sepsis biomarkers accurately predict severity and mortality. Previously, we had reported that first-day histidine-rich glycoprotein (HRG) levels were significantly lower in patients with sepsis and were associated with mortality. Since the time trends of HRG are unknown, this study focused on the time course of HRG in patients with sepsis and evaluated the differences between survivors and non-survivors.
methodsA multicenter prospective observational study was conducted involving 200 patients with sepsis in 16 Japanese hospitals. Blood samples were collected on days 1, 3, 5, and 7, and 28-day mortality was used for survival analysis. Plasma HRG levels were determined using a modified quantitative sandwich enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.
resultsFirst-day HRG levels in non-survivors were significantly lower than those in survivors (mean, 15.7 [95% confidence interval (CI), 13.4-18.1] vs 20.7 [19.5-21.9] μg/mL; P = 0.006). Although there was no time × survivors/non-survivors interaction in the time courses of HRG (P = 0.34), the main effect of generalized linear mixed models was significant (P < 0.001). In a univariate Cox proportional hazards model with each variable as a time-dependent covariate, higher HRG levels were significantly associated with a lower risk of mortality (hazard ratio, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.78-0.92]; P < 0.001). Furthermore, presepsin levels (P = 0.02) and Sequential Organ Function Assessment scores (P < 0.001) were significantly associated with mortality. Harrell's C-index values for the 28-day mortality effect of HRG, presepsin, procalcitonin, and C-reactive protein were 0.72, 0.70, 0.63, and 0.59, respectively.
conclusionsHRG levels in non-survivors were consistently lower than those in survivors during the first seven days of sepsis. Repeatedly measured HRG levels were significantly associated with mortality. Furthermore, the predictive power of HRG for mortality may be superior to that of other singular biomarkers, including presepsin, procalcitonin, and C-reactive protein.
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.