Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37949942›Full record

SynthesisScientific reports2023

Cell-free DNA as diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers for adult sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Awirut Charoensappakit, Kritsanawan Sae-Khow, Pongpera Rattanaliam, Nuntanuj Vutthikraivit, Monvasi Pecheenbuvan, Suwasin Udomkarnjananun, Asada Leelahavanichkul

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
10.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Awirut CharoensappakitMedical Microbiology, Interdisciplinary and International Program, Graduate School, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, 10330, Thailand.
Kritsanawan Sae-KhowCenter of Excellence on Translational Research in Inflammation and Immunology (CETRII), Faculty of Medicines, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, 10330, Thailand.
Pongpera RattanaliamDepartment of Clinical Microscopy, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, 10330, Thailand.
Nuntanuj VutthikraivitDivision of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, 10330, Thailand.
Monvasi PecheenbuvanDivision of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, 10330, Thailand.
Suwasin UdomkarnjananunDivision of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, 10330, Thailand.
Asada LeelahavanichkulCenter of Excellence on Translational Research in Inflammation and Immunology (CETRII), Faculty of Medicines, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, 10330, Thailand. asada.l@chula.ac.th.
Chulalongkorn University · TH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although cell-free DNA (cfDNA) is an emerging sepsis biomarker, the use of cfDNA, especially as diagnostic and prognostic indicators, has surprisingly not been systemically analyzed. Data of adult patients with sepsis that conducted cfDNA measurement within 24 h of the admission was collected from PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and Cochrane Library until October 2022. The Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) and Quality Assessment in Diagnostic Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tools were used to reduce the risk of biased assessment. The mean difference (MD) of cfDNA concentration and the standardized mean difference (SMD) between populations was calculated using Review Manager (RevMan) version 5.4.1 package software. Pooled analysis from 18 included studies demonstrated increased serum cfDNA levels in sepsis when compared with healthy control (SMD = 1.02; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46-1.57) or non-sepsis patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) (SMD = 1.03; 95% CI 0.65-1.40), respectively. Meanwhile, a slight decrease in the statistical value was observed when compared with non-sepsis ICU patients with SIRS (SMD = 0.74; 95% 0.41-1.06). The lower cfDNA levels were also observed in sepsis survivors compared to the non-survivors (SMD at 1.43; 95%CI 0.69-2.17) with the pooled area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.76 (95% CI 0.64-0.87) for the mortality prediction. Levels of cfDNA showed a pooled sensitivity of 0.81 (95% CI 0.75-0.86) and specificity of 0.72 (95% CI 0.65-0.78) with pooled diagnostic odd ratio (DOR) at 25.03 (95% CI 5.48-114.43) for the identification of sepsis in critically ill conditions. The cfDNA levels were significantly higher in patients with sepsis and being a helpful indicator for the critically ill conditions of sepsis. Nevertheless, results of the test must be interpreted carefully with the context of all clinical situations.

Indexed as

Cell-Free Nucleic AcidsSepsisAdultBiomarkersCritical IllnessHumansPrognosisROC CurveBiomarkersCell-Free Nucleic Acids

Identifiers

PMID37949942
PMCPMC10638380
OpenAlexW4388565284

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.