Observational studyEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2026
Diagnostic accuracy of SeptiCyte® RAPID to discriminate sepsis from non-infectious critical illness in patients meeting sepsis criteria according to sepsis-3 definition at ICU admission.
Observational study in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2026. 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.
- Recent advances in screening, diagnosis, prognosis and personalized treatment of sepsis.European journal of microbiology & immunology · 2026Review
- Sequential Application of Time-Stratified Demographic, Vital, Clinical-Laboratory, and Microbiology Variables for Accurate and Rapid Identification of Sepsis.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Ruling In and Ruling Out Sepsis Using Likelihood Ratios of a Host Response Assay.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Blood Host-Response mRNA Assays in Adult Acute Care: Diagnostic Performance, Translational Evidence, and the Clinical Implementation Gap.Infection and drug resistance · 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to validate the SeptiCyte® RAPID assay, a molecular test to distinguish sepsis from sterile inflammation, by determining its diagnostic accuracy in critically ill patients who meet criteria for sepsis according to Sepsis-3 definition on ICU admission
designThis is an observational, prospective, and multicenter study.
settingCarried out in seven hospitals in Andalusia (Spain). A 2.5 mL whole blood sample was collected and tested in a SeptiCyte RAPID kit on a real time PCR platform (IdyllaTM). A score from 0 to 15 (SeptiScore™) was generated that falls into four bands based on the increasing likelihood of infection-positive systemic inflammation. PATIENTS: Patients aged 18 years or older, admitted to the ICU with a diagnosis of sepsis. MAIN
resultsWe enrolled 354 patients, of whom 86 (24.3%) did not present sepsis at the researchers´ discretion. SeptiCyte® RAPID showed an AUC of [0.84 (CI95% 0.79-0.87)] for differentiating sepsis from sterile systemic inflammation. SeptiCyte® RAPID was significantly better for sepsis diagnosis than CRP [0.75 (CI95% 0.70-0.80)] (p =0.003) but without significant differences with PCT [0.80 (CI95% 0.75-0.84)]. SeptiScore distribution in patients with sepsis was higher than patients with sterile inflammation, with a PPV of 68.8% and 92.2% (Bands 3 and 4) for sepsis diagnosis and a PPV of 100% for sterile inflammation (Band 1). Independent risk factors for sepsis were estimated probability of sepsis [OR 8.02 (CI 95% 4.50-14.28), p<0.001], SeptiScore [OR 1.64 (CI 95% 1.35-1.99), p<0.001], and log procalcitonin [OR 1.68 (CI 95% 1.09-2.59), p=0.020].
conclusionsSeptiCyte® RAPID discriminates sepsis from sterile inflammation in critically ill adults, adding value to the diagnosis of sepsis. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to validate the SeptiCyte® RAPID assay, a molecular test to distinguish sepsis from sterile inflammation, by determining its diagnostic accuracy in critically ill patients who meet criteria for sepsis according to Sepsis-3 definition on ICU admission.
methodsThis is an observational, prospective, and multicenter study. Carried out in seven hospitals in Andalusia (Spain). A 2.5 mL whole blood sample was collected and tested in a SeptiCyte RAPID kit on a real time PCR platform (IdyllaTM). A score from 0 to 15 (SeptiScore™) was generated that falls into four bands based on the increasing likelihood of infection-positive systemic inflammation.Patients aged 18 years or older, admitted to the ICU with a diagnosis of sepsis were included.
resultsWe enrolled 353 patients, of whom 86 (23.7%) did not present sepsis at the researchers´ discretion. SeptiCyte® RAPID showed an AUC of [0.84 (CI95% 0.79-0.87)] for differentiating sepsis from sterile systemic inflammation. SeptiCyte® RAPID was significantly better for sepsis diagnosis than CRP [0.75 (CI95% 0.70-0.80)] (p =0.003) but without significant differences with PCT [0.80 (CI95% 0.75-0.84)]. SeptiScore distribution in patients with sepsis was higher than patients with sterile inflammation, with a PPV of 68.8% and 92.2% (Bands 3 and 4) for sepsis diagnosis and a PPV of 100% for sterile inflammation (Band 1). Independent risk factors for sepsis were physicians´ subjective likelihood of sepsis [intermediate probabilty OR 4.55 (95% CI 1.61-12.83), p=0.004 and high probabilty OR 72.04 (95% CI 20.85-248.93), p<0.001], SeptiScore [OR 1.65 (95% CI 1.32-2.07), p<0.001], and log procalcitonin [OR 1.74 ( 95% CI 1.08-2.79), p=0.022].
conclusionsSeptiCyte® RAPID discriminates sepsis from sterile inflammation in critically ill adults, adding value to the diagnosis of sepsis.
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.