SynthesisFrontiers in immunology2023
Diagnostic efficacy of serum presepsin for postoperative infectious complications: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in immunology, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Presepsin as a Novel Biomarker in Abdominal Sepsis: Diagnostic Accuracy and Prognostic Implications.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- Investigating the relationship between the IL-17 rs2275913, IL-17 rs763780, and the IL-6 rs1800795 genotypes in HIV-positive patients with COVID-19.Molecular biology reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Postoperative infectious complications (PICs) are major concerns. Early and accurate diagnosis is critical for timely treatment and improved outcomes. Presepsin is an emerging biomarker for bacterial infections. However, its diagnostic efficacy for PICs across surgical specialties remains unclear. Methods: In this study, a systematic search on MEDLINE, Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library was performed on September 30, 2023, to identify studies that evaluated presepsin for diagnosing PICs. PIC is defined as the development of surgical site infection or remote infection. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) curves were calculated. The primary outcome was the assessment of the efficacy of presepsin for PIC diagnosis, and the secondary outcome was the investigation of the reliability of procalcitonin or C-reactive protein (CRP) in the diagnosis of PICs. Results: This meta-analysis included eight studies (n = 984) and revealed that the pooled sensitivity and specificity of presepsin for PIC diagnosis were 76% (95% confidence interval [CI] 68%-82%) and 83% (95% CI 75%-89%), respectively. The HSROC curve yielded an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.77 (95% CI 0.73-0.81). Analysis of six studies on procalcitonin showed a combined sensitivity of 78% and specificity of 77%, with an AUC of 0.83 derived from the HSROC. Meanwhile, data from five studies on CRP indicated pooled sensitivity of 84% and specificity of 79%, with the HSROC curve yielding an AUC of 0.89. Conclusion: Presepsin exhibits moderate diagnostic accuracy for PIC across surgical disciplines. Based on the HSROC-derived AUC, CRP has the highest diagnostic efficacy for PICs, followed by procalcitonin and presepsin. Nonetheless, presepsin demonstrated greater specificity than the other biomarkers. Further study is warranted to validate the utility of and optimize the cutoff values for presepsin. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42023468358.
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.