SynthesisItalian journal of pediatrics2026
Diagnostic accuracy of MMBV in predicting bacterial infection in febrile children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Italian journal of pediatrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Nomogram Integrating CD169%, Neutrophil CD64 Index, and C-Reactive Protein for Differential Diagnosis of Mixed Respiratory Tract Infections.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDistinguishing viral from bacterial infections in febrile children remains challenging despite available biomarkers. MMBV is a promising host-protein biosignature that computationally integrates TNF-related apoptosis-induced ligand, interferon-γ-induced protein-10, and C-reactive protein. MMBV uses predefined score thresholds for viral/non-bacterial (0–35), equivocal (36–65) and bacterial (66–100) etiologies. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate MMBV diagnostic accuracy in febrile children.
methodsEmbase, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, and CINAHL were searched until July 1, 2024. Studies evaluating MMBV diagnostic accuracy in febrile children, comparing the results of the MMBV score with a predefined reference standard established by an expert panel, were included. Two investigators independently screened, extracted data and evaluated the quality of eligible/included studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. Aggregate estimates of sensitivities and specificities were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI), overall and by type of infections.
resultsOf 486 studies identified, 14 met inclusion criteria, and nine were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity estimates were 0.87 (95%CI 0.79–0.92, I2 55.6%) and 0.93 (95%CI 0.92–0.94, I2 0.0%), respectively. Pooled sensitivity and specificity for studies on febrile children, regardless of source, were 0.86 (95%CI 0.82–0.89, I2 0.0%) and 0.93 (95%CI 0.92–0.94, I2 0.0%). For studies on respiratory infections and fever without source, they were 0.89 (95%CI 0.79–0.95, I2 75.4%) and 0.93 (95%CI 0.91–0.94, I2 15.0%)
conclusionsMMBV showed high diagnostic accuracy, and results remained consistently elevated across sub-analyses. Additional studies are needed to evaluate its effectiveness in reducing unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions in febrile children. STUDY PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The study protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) with the number CRD42024506430. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=506430.
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.