ArticleInfection & chemotherapy2024
No Significant Differences in Presepsin Levels According to the Causative Microorganism of Bloodstream Infection.
Article in Infection & chemotherapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of presepsin dynamics in septic patients with and without liver cirrhosis.Journal of critical care medicine (Universitatea de Medicina si Farmacie din Targu-Mures) · 2026Article
- Features of Metabolites and Biomarkers in Inflammatory and Infectious Complications of Childhood Cancers.Biomedicines · 2024Article
- Navigating the Modern Landscape of Sepsis: Advances in Diagnosis and Treatment.International journal of molecular sciences · 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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCD14 recognizes lipopolysaccharide (LPS), and presepsin is a fragment of soluble CD14. Still, it remains uncertain whether Gram-negative bacteria induce higher presepsin levels than other microorganisms. To address this question, this study aimed to analyze presepsin levels based on microorganisms isolated in blood cultures. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study was a single-center study comprising suspected sepsis patients enrolled from July 2020 to September 2020. A total of 95 patients with a single isolate confirmed in blood culture were analyzed to evaluate if there are any differences in presepsin levels according to microbial isolates. Plasma presepsin level was measured using PATHFAST assay kit and analyzer (LSI Medience Corporation, Tokyo, Japan).
resultsThere were 26 Gram-positive bacteremia, 65 Gram-negative bacteremia, and 3 fungemia patients with median presepsin levels of 869, 1,439, and 11,951 pg/mL, respectively. Besides, one case of algaemia demonstrated a presepsin level of 1,231 pg/mL. Our results showed no statistically significant difference in presepsin levels among patients with Gram-positive bacteremia, Gram-negative bacteremia, and fungemia. Furthermore, presepsin levels did not differ significantly among bloodstream infections caused by bacteria that were isolated from at least three different patients. In particular, Gram-positive bacteria such as
conclusionWe demonstrated that there were no significant differences in plasma presepsin levels according to microbial isolates in blood culture. The major cause of the variability in presepsin levels during bloodstream infection might be the immunogenicity of each microorganism rather than the presence of LPS in the microorganism.
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.