ArticleJournal of critical care medicine (Universitatea de Medicina si Farmacie din Targu-Mures)2025
The use of biomarkers testing in Emergency Department.
Article in Journal of critical care medicine (Universitatea de Medicina si Farmacie din Targu-Mures), 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.
- Oxford Nanopore Sequencing, a Promising Technology for Precision Diagnostics in Intensive Care Units: A Narrative Review.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- A Mini-Review of Point-of-Care C-Reactive Protein Testing in Sepsis in the Emergency Department.EJIFCC · 2026Review
- Narrative Review: Research Progress and Future Directions of Presepsin in Neurological Prognostication of Adult Post-Return of Spontaneous Circulation (Post-ROSC) Cardiac Arrest Survivors.Journal of inflammation research · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: In the fast-paced environment of Emergency Departments (EDs), biomarkers are essential for the rapid diagnosis and management of critical conditions. Aim of the study: This study evaluates the current clinical practice on key biomarkers in Romanian EDs, addressing the needs of emergency medicine physicians, and the challenges associated with biomarker testing. Material and Methods: An online survey was sent to physicians working in ED to explore their perceptions, needs, and barriers regarding biomarkers, including Point-of-care (POC). Data was collected anonymously through an online platform and subsequently analyzed. Results: This survey analyzed data from 168 completed responses, with 95.2% of respondents being specialists in emergency medicine. Procalcitonin and presepsin were most preferred for PoCT, while troponin and D-dimer were highly rated regardless of the testing method, reflecting their utility in sepsis and cardiovascular emergencies. Neuron-specific enolase, interleukin-6, and procalcitonin were the biomarkers considered needed. Conclusions: The most frequently used biomarkers in ED were troponin, D-dimer, BNP/NT-proBNP, and procalcitonin. NSE, IL-6, and procalcitonin were the most recommended for future integration. High costs, limited availability, and false-positive concerns remain significant challenges in biomarker use.
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.