ArticleBMC infectious diseases2024
Procalcitonin and C-reactive protein as diagnostic biomarkers in COVID-19 and Non-COVID-19 sepsis patients: a comparative study.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Baseline Interleukin-6 in Sepsis: Mortality Risk Stratification and Survival Analysis in a Prospective Cohort.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Explainable machine learning with routine biomarkers identifies culture-defined bacteremic urosepsis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Distinct Plasma LPC Signatures Differentiate COVID-19 Sepsis from Other Sepsis Aetiologies.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- A Retrospective Analysis of the Predictive Role of RDW, MPV, and MPV/PLT Values in 28-Day Mortality of Geriatric Sepsis Patients: Associations with APACHE II and SAPS II Scores.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Role of Artificial Intelligence in Identifying Vital Biomarkers with Greater Precision in Emergency Departments During Emerging Pandemics.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Machine learning constructs a diagnostic prediction model for calculous pyonephrosis.Urolithiasis · 2024Article
- Random forest differentiation of Escherichia coli in elderly sepsis using biomarkers and infectious sites.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Hospital Acquired Sepsis, Disease Prevalence, and Recent Advances in Sepsis Mitigation.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to assess and compare procalcitonin (PCT) and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 sepsis patients. Additionally, we evaluated the diagnostic efficiency of PCT and CRP in distinguishing between Gram-positive (GP) and Gram-negative (GN) bacterial infections. Moreover, we explored the associations of PCT with specific pathogens in this context.
methodsThe study included 121 consecutive sepsis patients who underwent blood culture testing during the COVID-19 epidemic. PCT and CRP were measured, and reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) was employed for the detection of COVID-19 nucleic acid. The Mann-Whitney U-test was used to compare PCT and CRP between the COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 groups. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated to compare PCT and CRP levels in the GN group versus the GP group for assessing the diagnostic efficiency. The kruskal-Wallis H test was applied to assess the impact of specific pathogen groups on PCT concentrations.
resultsA total of 121 sepsis patients were categorized into a COVID-19 group (n = 25) and a non-COVID-19 group (n = 96). No significant differences in age and gender were observed between the COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 groups. The comparison of biomarkers between these groups showed no statistically significant differences. The optimal cut-off values for PCT and CRP in differentiating between GP and GN infections were 1.03 ng/mL and 34.02 mg/L, respectively. The area under the ROC curve was 0.689 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.591-0.786) for PCT and 0.611 (95% CI 0.505-0.717) for CRP. The diagnostic accuracy was 69.42% for PCT and 58.69% for CRP. The study found a significant difference in PCT levels among specific groups of pathogens (P < 0.001), with the highest levels observed in Escherichia coli infections. The frequency of Staphylococcus spp. positive results was significantly higher (36.0%) in COVID-19 compared to non-COVID-19 sepsis patients (P = 0.047).
conclusionSepsis patients with COVID-19 revealed a significantly higher culture positivity for staphylococcus spp. than the non-COVID-19 group. Both PCT and CRP showed moderate diagnostic efficiency in differentiating between GP and GN bacterial infections. PCT showed potential utility in identifying E. coli infections compared to other pathogens.
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.