Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37834815›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023

Reduced Reliability of Procalcitonin (PCT) as a Biomarker of Bacterial Superinfection: Concerns about PCT-Driven Antibiotic Stewardship in Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients-Results from a Retrospective Observational Study in Intensive Care Units.

Giancarlo Ceccarelli, Francesco Alessandri, Giuseppe Migliara, Valentina Baccolini, Giovanni Giordano, Gioacchino Galardo, Carolina Marzuillo, Corrado De Vito, Alessandro Russo, Massimo Ciccozzi and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Building a diagnostic prediction model for severeFrontiers in public health · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

15 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Giancarlo CeccarelliHospital Policlinico Umberto I, 00161 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-5921-3180
Francesco AlessandriHospital Policlinico Umberto I, 00161 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-3989-4964
Giuseppe MigliaraHospital Policlinico Umberto I, 00161 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-4573-6025
Valentina BaccoliniHospital Policlinico Umberto I, 00161 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7873-7817
Giovanni GiordanoHospital Policlinico Umberto I, 00161 Rome, Italy.
Gioacchino GalardoHospital Policlinico Umberto I, 00161 Rome, Italy.
Carolina MarzuilloDepartment of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, University of Rome Sapienza, 00185 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7299-5727
Corrado De VitoDepartment of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, University of Rome Sapienza, 00185 Rome, Italy.
Alessandro RussoInfectious and Tropical Disease Unit, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, 'Magna Graecia' University of Catanzaro, 88100 Catanzaro, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-3846-4620
Massimo CiccozziUnit of Medical Statistics and Molecular Epidemiology, University Campus Bio-Medico of Rome, 00128 Rome, Italy.
Paolo VillariDepartment of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, University of Rome Sapienza, 00185 Rome, Italy.
Mario VendittiHospital Policlinico Umberto I, 00161 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-2639-0281
Claudio M MastroianniHospital Policlinico Umberto I, 00161 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-1286-467X
Francesco PuglieseHospital Policlinico Umberto I, 00161 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-8076-1250
Gabriella d'EttorreHospital Policlinico Umberto I, 00161 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3571-5677
Policlinico Umberto I · ITMagna Graecia University · ITUniversità Campus Bio-Medico · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this study was to assess whether procalcitonin levels is a diagnostic tool capable of accurately identifying sepsis and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) even in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

methodsIn this retrospective, observational study, all critically ill COVID-19 patients who survived for ≥2 days in a single university hospital and had at least one serum procalcitonin (PCT) value and associated blood culture and/or culture from a lower respiratory tract specimen available were eligible for the study.

resultsOver the research period, 184 patients were recruited; 67 VAP/BSI occurred, with an incidence rate of 21.82 episodes of VAP/BSI (95% CI: 17.18-27.73) per 1000 patient-days among patients who were included. At the time of a positive microbiological culture, an average PCT level of 1.25-3.2 ng/mL was found. Moreover, also in subjects without positive cultures, PCT was altered in 21.7% of determinations, with an average value of 1.04-5.5 ng/mL. Both PCT and PCT-72 h were not linked to a diagnosis of VAP/BSI in COVID-19 patients, according to the multivariable GEE models (aOR 1.13, 95% CI 0.51-2.52 for PCT; aOR 1.32, 95% CI 0.66-2.64 for PCT-72 h).

conclusionElevated PCT levels might not always indicate bacterial superinfections or coinfections in a severe COVID-19 setting.

Indexed as

biomarkerCOVID-19critically illICUintensive care unitPCTprocalcitoninSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID37834815
PMCPMC10573961
OpenAlexW4386995595

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.