ArticleInfection2026
Comparative evaluation of multimodal point-of-care tests to differentiate gram-negative from gram-positive infections in critically ill adults: a diagnostic accuracy study.
Article in Infection, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposePatients with suspected sepsis often receive broad-spectrum antibiotics before culture results are available. A rapid point-of-care test (POCT) that indicates Gram-negative (GN) versus Gram-positive (GP) infection could help tailor empiric therapy. We systematically compared available POCT for GN/GP differentiation and, for biomarkers, examined clinically usable thresholds.
methodsPubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library (January 2005 to August 2025) were searched for studies in adults with sepsis that evaluated rapid tests to distinguish GN from GP infection. We pooled host-response biomarkers, pathogen-directed assays, omics-based tests, and clinical-parameter approaches using a bivariate random-effects model to obtain pooled sensitivity, specificity, area under the curve (AUC) and Youden's index. For biomarkers reported at multiple cut-offs, clinically relevant strata were prespecified and compared.
resultsOf 86 included studies, 72 were eligible for quantitative synthesis. Pathogen-directed rapid assays (PCR, MALDI-TOF MS) showed the highest and most consistent accuracy (pooled sensitivity and specificity > 0.90; AUC 0.97-0.99; Youden 0.85-0.92). Among the biomarker studies, procalcitonin (PCT) showed clear threshold dependence: the 3-5 ng/mL stratum provided the most balanced discrimination (sensitivity 0.84; specificity 0.83; AUC 0.90; Youden 0.67), whereas higher cut-offs did not yield further gains. Omics-based approaches showed variable accuracy, and clinical-parameter approaches alone achieved sensitivity and specificity < 0.70.
conclusionIn adults with sepsis, pathogen-directed rapid assays are the most reliable POCT for early GN/GP differentiation. When biomarker testing is available, a PCT range of 3-5 ng/mL is a pragmatic working threshold that can support earlier tailoring of empiric antimicrobial therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41535672What 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.