Observational studyRevista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia2024
Diagnostic power of LIAISON MeMed VB® for bacterial infection in adults patients seen in Emergency Departments due to infections.
Observational study in Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia, 2024. 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.
- Diagnostic Performance of the MeMed BV Test to Distinguish Between Bacterial and Viral or Other Non-Bacterial Causes Amongst ED and Urgent Care Patients: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- [Ability of midregional proadrenomedullin (MR-proADM) to predict poor clinical outcome and stratify prognosis in adult patients seen for suspected infection in the Emergency Department].Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo analyze the diagnostic accuracy of the new MeMed® test to predict bacterial infection in adult patients seen in emergency departments (ED) with clinical suspicion of infection, as well as to compare its performance with other commonly used biomarkers (protein C reactive-PCR-, procalcitonin -PCT-).
methodsA prospective, observational and analytical study was carried out on adult patients who were treated in an ED with the clinical diagnosis of an infectious process. Follow-up was carried out for 30 days. The diagnosis of bacterial infection (BI) was considered as the dependent variable. The predictive ability was analyzed with the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic (COR) and the values of sensitivity (Se), specificity (Es), positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of the PCR, PCT, leukocyte count and the LIAISON® MeMed® test.
resultsThe study included 258 patients, 54 (15.6%) of whom died within 30 days of visiting the ED. The mean age was 68.28 (SD 19.53) years, 57.4% (148) were men. At 30 days, the group with the IB diagnosis had 137 patients, the viral infection group 68 cases and 17 in the indeterminate group. The AUC-COR achieved by MeMed® in the group that analyzes all patients was 0.920 (95% CI: 0.877-0.962) and the PCT was 0.811 (95% CI: 0.754-0.867). With a cut-off point (PC) > 65 points of the MeMed® test, achieves a Se: 79.2% and Es: 91.2% and with PC > 90 points a Se: 57% and Es: 95.9%. Applying the Youden index, the PC > 50 points achieves Se:84.1% and Es:88.2%.
conclusionsIn adult patients treated with clinical suspicion of infection in the ED, the LIAISON MeMed® test has a great ability to diagnose its bacterial origin and achieves better performance than PCT, PCR and leukocyte count.
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.