ArticlePractical laboratory medicine2025
Comparison of the accuracy of procalcitonin, neutrophil CD64, and C-reactive protein for the diagnosis and prognosis of septic patients after antibiotic therapy.
Article in Practical laboratory medicine, 2025. 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.
- Use of procalcitonin point-of-care testing to guide de-escalation of antibiotic therapy in adults with suspected bacterial sepsis in a tertiary hospital in Bangladesh: a randomised controlled open-label trial.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Article
- Eravacycline in Critically Ill Patients with Multidrug-Resistant Gram-Negative Infections: A Real-World Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- C-reactive protein in adult sepsis: systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The performance of the inflammatory biomarkers in the management of septic patients who received antimicrobial therapies is largely neglected. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of procalcitonin (PCT), neutrophil CD64 (CD64), and C-reactive protein (CRP) for the diagnosis and prognosis of septic patients after antimicrobial therapy. Methods: This study prospectively recruited consecutive patients without infection and those diagnosed with infection but had received initial antimicrobial therapies. Sepsis was diagnosed according to sepsis-3 criteria. Serum PCT, CD64 and CRP levels were measured upon entry to the ICU. We also collected each patient's baseline characteristics. The diagnostic and prognostic performance of these parameters was evaluated from the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC). Results: A total of 635 consecutive ICU patients were screened for eligible and 289 (45.5 %) patients were diagnosed with sepsis upon entry to the ICU. The area under the curve (AUC) for PCT, CD64 and CRP in the identification of sepsis is 0.726, 0.692 and 0.719, respectively. Neither PCT (p = 0.587) nor CD64 (p = 0.373) is superior to CRP in the diagnosis of septic patients who received antimicrobial therapies. The AUC for PCT, CD64 and CRP in the prediction of ICU mortality in these sepsis patients is 0.702, 0.637 and 0.593, respectively. The prognostic performance of PCT (p = 0.006) rather than CD64 (p = 0.509) is better than CRP. Conclusions: Both PCT and CD64 are not superior to CRP in the identification of septic patients who received antimicrobial therapies. However, PCT instead of CD64 has a better prognostic accuracy than CRP for the prediction of ICU mortality of these septic patients.
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.