ArticleScientific reports2024
Understanding the value of monocyte distribution width (MDW) in acutely ill medical patients presenting to the emergency department: a prospective single center evaluation.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Advancing Antimicrobial Stewardship With Diagnostic Excellence: The Role of Bayesian Reasoning.Open forum infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Monocyte Distribution Width and Composite Biomarker Assessment for Prognostic Stratification of Sepsis in the Intensive Care Unit.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Monocyte distribution width in breast cancer: Results from a retrospective exploratory pilot study.Molecular and clinical oncology · 2026Article
- Diagnostic accuracy and severity prediction of monocyte distribution width in sepsis: a retrospective study from the United Arab Emirates.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Early Sepsis Detection in Adult Patients with Suspected Sepsis in an Emergency Setting: A Sequential Strategy of Monocyte Distribution Width and Presepsin.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Reduction of resources with mRNA host-response whole blood testing on patients presenting to the emergency department with suspected infections: a retrospective analysis of 30 cases.Journal of medical microbiology · 2025Article
- Diagnostic Performance of Monocyte Distribution Width for the Detection of Sepsis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2025Review
- The Need for Standardized Guidelines for the Use of Monocyte Distribution Width (MDW) in the Early Diagnosis of Sepsis.Journal of personalized medicine · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The monocyte distribution width (MDW) has emerged as a promising biomarker for accurate and early identification of patients with potentially life-threatening infections. Here we tested the diagnostic performance of MDW in adult patients requiring hospital admission for community-acquired infections and sepsis, evaluated sources of heterogeneity in the estimates of diagnostic accuracy, and assessed the meaning of MDW in a patient population presenting to the emergency department (ED) for acute non-infectious conditions. 1925 consecutive patients were categorized into three groups: non-infection (n = 1507), infection (n = 316), and sepsis/septic shock (n = 102). Diagnostic performance for infection or sepsis of MDW alone or in combination with components of SOFA was tested using AUC of ROC curves, sensitivity, and specificity. The relationship between MDW and different pathogens as well as the impact of non-infectious conditions on MDW values were explored. For the prediction of infection, the AUC/ROC of MDW (0.84) was nearly overlapping that of procalcitonin (0.83), and C-reactive protein (0.89). Statistical optimal cut-off value for MDW was 21 for predicting infection (sensitivity 73%, specificity 82%) and 22 for predicting sepsis (sensitivity 79%, specificity 83%). The best threshold to rule out infection was MDW ≤ 17 (NPV 96.9, 95% CI 88.3-100.0), and ≤ 18 (NPV 99.5, 95% CI 98.3-100.0) to rule out sepsis. The combination of MDW with markers of organ dysfunction (creatinine, bilirubin, platelets) substantially improved the AUC (0.96 (95% CI 0.94-0.97); specificity and sensitivity of 88% and 94%, respectively). In conclusion, MDW has a good diagnostic performance in diagnosing infection and sepsis in patients presenting in ED. Its use as an infection marker even increases when combined with other markers of organ dysfunction. Understanding the impact of interactions of non-infectious conditions and comorbidities on MDW and its diagnostic accuracy requires further elucidation.
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.