ArticleInfection2025
Evaluation of a host-protein signature score for differentiating between bacterial and viral infections: real-life evidence from a German tertiary hospital.
Article in Infection, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeA host-protein signature score, consisting of serum-concentrations of C-reactive protein, tumour necrosis factor-related apoptosis-inducing ligand, and interferon gamma-induced protein 10, was validated for distinguishing between bacterial and viral infections as an antimicrobial stewardship measure for routine clinical practice among adult patients in a German tertiary hospital.
methodsThis single-centre, explorative study prospectively assessed the host-protein signature score, comparing it with serum procalcitonin (PCT) in patients with blood stream infections (BSI) and evaluating its efficacy in patients with viral infections against the standard of care (SOC) to assess the need for antibiotics due to suspected bacterial super/coinfection. Manufacturer-specified threshold scores were used to differentiate viral (< 35) and bacterial (> 65) infections.
resultsNinety-seven patients (BSI [n = 56]; viral infections [n = 41]) were included. The score (cut-off score > 65) tended to detect BSI with higher sensitivity than did PCT (cut-off > 0.5 ng/mL) (87.5% vs. 76.6%). Three patients (5.4%) with BSI had a score < 35. One patient with BSI did not receive antibiotic treatment following SOC prior to positive blood culture results. Among patients with viral infections, 29 (70.7%) had scores > 65, indicating bacterial superinfections. Additionally, 11 patients (26.8%) had scores < 35, indicating no bacterial superinfections. In total, the antibiotic treatment discrepancy in the viral group between the SOC and a host-protein signature score guided approach was 2/41 patients (4.9%).
conclusionThe score tended towards a higher sensitivity in detecting BSI than that with PCT. However, its impact on reducing antibiotic use in viral infections was minor compared with that of SOC.
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.