Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37537680›Full record

ReviewDiagnostic and prognostic research2023

Basal procalcitonin, C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, and presepsin for prediction of mortality in critically ill septic patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Daniel Molano-Franco, Ingrid Arevalo-Rodriguez, Alfonso Muriel, Laura Del Campo-Albendea, Silvia Fernández-García, Ana Alvarez-Méndez, Daniel Simancas-Racines, Andres Viteri, Guillermo Sanchez, Borja Fernandez-Felix and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Diagnostic and prognostic research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

18 authors at 12 institutions in 5 countries.

Daniel Molano-FrancoHospital San José, Fundación Universitaria de Ciencias de la Salud (FUCS), CIMCA Research Group, Bogotá, Colombia.
Ingrid Arevalo-RodriguezClinical Biostatistics Unit, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, IRYCIS, CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain. inarev7@yahoo.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7326-4504
Alfonso MurielClinical Biostatistics Unit, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, IRYCIS, CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain.
Laura Del Campo-AlbendeaClinical Biostatistics Unit, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, IRYCIS, CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain.
Silvia Fernández-GarcíaWHO Collaborating Centre for Global Women's Health, Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Ana Alvarez-MéndezNursing Department, Faculty of Nursing, Physiotherapy and Podiatry, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Daniel Simancas-RacinesCentro de investigación en Salud Pública y Epidemiología Clínica (CISPEC) Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud "Eugenio Espejo", Universidad UTE, Quito, Ecuador.
Andres ViteriCentro de investigación en Salud Pública y Epidemiología Clínica (CISPEC) Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud "Eugenio Espejo", Universidad UTE, Quito, Ecuador.
Guillermo SanchezHospital Universitario Mayor-Méderi; Universidad del Rosario, Bogota, Colombia.
Borja Fernandez-FelixClinical Biostatistics Unit, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, IRYCIS, CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain.
Jesus Lopez-AlcaldeClinical Biostatistics Unit, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, IRYCIS, CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain.
Ivan SolàIberoamerican Cochrane Centre, IIB SANT PAU, CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Barcelona, Spain.
Dimelza OsorioHealth Services Research Group, Vall d'Hebron Institut de Recerca (VHIR), Vall d'Hebron Hospital Universitari, Vall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Barcelona, Spain.
Khalid Saeed KhanDepartment of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Granada, CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Granada, Spain.
Xavier NuvialsCritical Care Department, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Shock Organ Dysfunction and Resuscitation Research Group (SODIR), Vall d'Hebron Research Institute (VHIR), Barcelona, Spain.
Ricard FerrerCritical Care Department, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Shock Organ Dysfunction and Resuscitation Research Group (SODIR), Vall d'Hebron Research Institute (VHIR), Barcelona, Spain.
Javier ZamoraClinical Biostatistics Unit, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, IRYCIS, CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain.
SEPSIS-BIOMARKERS Collaborators
Instituto Ramón y Cajal de Investigación Sanitaria · ESVall d'Hebron Institut de Recerca · ESFundación Universitaria de Ciencias de la Salud · COIberoamerican Cochrane Centre · ESUniversidad Complutense de Madrid · ESUniversidad UTE · ECInstituto Cajal · ESUniversidad de Alcalá · ESUniversidad de Granada · ESUniversidad del Rosario · COUniversity of Birmingham · GBUniversity of Zurich · CH

Funding

Instituto de Salud Carlos III PI 19/0048
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNumerous biomarkers have been proposed for diagnosis, therapeutic, and prognosis in sepsis. Previous evaluations of the value of biomarkers for predicting mortality due to this life-threatening condition fail to address the complexity of this condition and the risk of bias associated with prognostic studies. We evaluate the predictive performance of four of these biomarkers in the prognosis of mortality through a methodologically sound evaluation.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine, in critically ill adults with sepsis, whether procalcitonin (PCT), C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6), and presepsin (sCD14) are independent prognostic factors for mortality. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to March 2023. Only Phase-2 confirmatory prognostic factor studies among critically ill septic adults were included. Random effects meta-analyses pooled the prognostic association estimates.

resultsWe included 60 studies (15,681 patients) with 99 biomarker assessments. Quality of the statistical analysis and reporting domains using the QUIPS tool showed high risk of bias in > 60% assessments. The biomarker measurement as a continuous variable in models adjusted by key covariates (age and severity score) for predicting mortality at 28-30 days showed a null or near to null association for basal PCT (pooled OR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.99-1.003), CRP (OR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.87 to 1.17), and IL-6 (OR = 1.02, 95% CI = 1.01-1.03) and sCD14 (pooled HR = 1.003, 95% CI = 1.000 to 1.006). Additional meta-analyses accounting for other prognostic covariates had similarly null findings.

conclusionBaseline, isolated measurement of PCT, CRP, IL-6, and sCD14 has not been shown to help predict mortality in critically ill patients with sepsis. The role of these biomarkers should be evaluated in new studies where the patient selection would be standardized and the measurement of biomarker results.

trial registrationPROSPERO (CRD42019128790).

Indexed as

BiomarkersMortalityPrognostic factorsSepsisSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID37537680
PMCPMC10399020
OpenAlexW4385553286

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.