SynthesisBMC infectious diseases2026
Is procalcitonin superior to CRP and ESR in the diagnosis of diabetic foot osteomyelitis? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC infectious diseases, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn this study, we aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of inflammatory biomarkers in clinical practice to distinguish diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO) from soft tissue infection in diabetes.
methodsElectronic databases were searched for relevant studies on the diagnosis of DFO using CRP, ESR, or PCT until Sep 2023. We pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, DOR, and ROC-AUC to assess the diagnostic value of biomarkers for DFO. We evaluated the included study with the QUADAS tool. The sensitivity analysis and publication bias were assessed.
resultsA total of 14 studies with 1698 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The combined sensitivity was 0.78 (95% CI: 0.66–0.87), specificity was 0.72 (95% CI: 0.64–0.78), and AUC was 0.79 for CRP diagnosis. The combined sensitivity was 0.77 (95% CI: 0.67–0.85), specificity was 0.74 (95% CI: 0.65–0.81), and AUC was 0.82 for ESR diagnosis. The combined sensitivity was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.63–0.97), specificity was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.63–0.92), and AUC was 0.91 for PCT.
conclusionThis study evaluated the role of ESR, CRP, and PCT in the diagnosis of DFO, and found that PCT had the best diagnostic test accuracy in distinguishing DFO from soft tissue infection in diabetes. CLINICAL TRIAL: Not applicable.
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.