SynthesisEuropean journal of pediatrics2025
Diagnostic accuracy of interleukin-6 (IL-6) as a significant biomarker in late-onset neonatal sepsis: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European journal of pediatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the risk of elevated IL-6 levels in pediatric patients: a stratified approach and evidence of interaction effects.Translational pediatrics · 2026Article
- Interleukin-6 as a sepsis biomarker in neonatal and pediatric care: A retrospective real world cohort study.European journal of pediatrics · 2026Article
- Mechanisms of vaginal bacteria-induced fetal membrane damage and tocilizumab's therapeutic potential in PPROM.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Clinical utility of combined serum IL-6, PCT, and SAA assays for early diagnosis and severity stratification of neonatal sepsis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Plasma haem oxygenase-1 and interleukin-6 as adjunct host biomarkers associated with malaria.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
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
Late-onset neonatal sepsis (LONS) remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in neonates, particularly among preterm and low birth weight infants. Interleukin-6 (IL-6) has emerged as a promising biomarker for early detection of LONS, yet the diagnostic performance of IL-6 remains inconsistent across studies. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the overall diagnostic accuracy of IL-6 in detecting LONS and to assess the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. A comprehensive search of five databases was conducted up to July 15, 2025. Twenty-two studies were eligible for inclusion, of which 20 (n = 3527 neonates) were included in the meta-analysis. A bivariate random-effects model was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity, and the area under the SROC curve was used to assess overall diagnostic accuracy. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 85.2% (95% CI: 80.0-89.3%) and 84.1% (95% CI: 77.5-89.0%), respectively. The positive and negative likelihood ratios were 5.43 and 0.18, with a diagnostic odds ratio of 31.4. The AUC was 0.91, indicating excellent diagnostic accuracy. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the findings, and no significant threshold effect was detected. However, suspected publication bias was noted. The GRADE assessment rated the certainty of evidence as moderate.
conclusionIL-6 demonstrates high diagnostic accuracy for LONS and may serve as a valuable tool for early identification, though standardization of cutoff thresholds and further validation studies are warranted. WHAT IS KNOWN: • IL-6 is an early-rising biomarker for late-onset neonatal sepsis (LONS), but its diagnostic accuracy varies across studies. WHAT IS NEW: • This meta-analysis used a bivariate model to estimate IL-6 performance, yielding high pooled sensitivity (85.2%) and specificity (84.1%).
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.