ArticleBMC emergency medicine2026
Diagnostic performance of eosinopenia for identifying bacterial infections in the emergency department: a prospective multicenter study.
Article in BMC emergency medicine, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionBacterial infections remain a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. In the Emergency Department (ED), timely diagnosis and initiation of appropriate antibiotics are crucial to improve patient outcomes. While leukocyte and neutrophil counts are routinely interpreted, eosinophils are rarely considered, despite being systematically available. We aimed to assess the discriminative performance of eosinopenia compared with standard leukocyte parameters for identifying bacterial infections in the ED.
methodsWe conducted a prospective, multicenter study in five French EDs between March 2018 and September 2021. Adult patients with suspected or confirmed bacterial infection who underwent a differential blood count were included, alongside a control group of non-infected ED patients. Eosinophil counts were compared with leukocytes, neutrophils, and C-reactive protein (CRP). The diagnosis of infection was confirmed during hospital follow-up by independent expert review.
resultsA total of 770 patients were analyzed, including 422 infected and 348 controls. Median eosinophil count was significantly lower in patients with bacterial infection than in controls (10/mm3 vs 80/mm3, p<0.001). Eosinopenia ≤10/mm3 had a specificity of 88% and a sensitivity of 48%. The discriminative performance, evaluated by the area under the curve (AUC), of eosinopenia (AUC 0.75) was comparable to neutrophils (AUC=0.74) and leukocytes (AUC=0.72), though inferior to CRP (AUC=0.89). Across infection sites, eosinopenia consistently ranked as the best-performing leukocyte marker, with maximal performance in urinary infections (AUC=0.82). Eosinophil count was not associated with in-hospital mortality in infected patients (HR=1.001, 95%CI: [0.997-1.005]).
conclusionEosinopenia represents a simple, low-cost, and readily available biomarker for diagnosing bacterial infections in the ED. Its discriminative performance is comparable to that of traditional leukocyte parameters, although it remains inferior to CRP. These findings support its role as a complementary rule-in biomarker reinforcing early clinical suspicion of infection in the ED.
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.