ReviewClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2025
C-reactive protein in adult sepsis: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pancreatic Stone Protein as an Early Predictor of Adverse Events in Patients with Infection Presenting to the Emergency Department: A Pilot Study.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Article
- A Simple Admission-Based Score for Early Mortality Risk Stratification in Non-Shock Sepsis: A Pilot Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Identification of MMP8, DDX24, RNASE2, and EMB as a novel diagnostic gene panel for sepsis: a transcriptome-based modeling study.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Sepsis biomarkers: recent advances and future perspectives.Frontiers in immunology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the diagnostic and prognostic accuracy of C-Reactive Protein (CRP) in adult patients with suspected or confirmed sepsis.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using the Medline, Embase, and Google Scholar databases, without language or time restrictions. Studies involving adults at risk for, suspected of, or diagnosed with sepsis who underwent CRP measurement and reported diagnostic or prognostic accuracy data were eligible. Both cross-sectional and cohort studies were included. Risk of bias was evaluated with the QUADAS-2 tool, and the quality of evidence was graded using the GRADE approach.
resultsA total of 3599 records were screened, and 22 studies (13,083 patients) met the inclusion criteria, 16 assessing diagnostic accuracy and 6 evaluating prognostic value. In the diagnostic meta-analysis, the pooled sensitivity was 83 % (95 % CI 75 %-89 %) and specificity was 56 % (95 % CI 41 %-69 %), with high heterogeneity (I
conclusionsCurrent evidence reveals high diagnostic uncertainty and limited prognostic accuracy of CRP in adults with sepsis. The low specificity and high error rates restrict the clinical utility of CRP for diagnostic or prognostic decision-making in sepsis management.
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.