ArticleBMC anesthesiology2026
Comparison of serial pancreatic stone protein, C-reactive protein and procalcitonin for the diagnosis of infection and sepsis in critically Ill patients: a multicentre prospective study.
Article in BMC anesthesiology, 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.
- Identification of MMP8, DDX24, RNASE2, and EMB as a novel diagnostic gene panel for sepsis: a transcriptome-based modeling study.Frontiers in immunology · 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
backgroundThe serial performance of C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin, and emerging biomarker pancreatic stone protein (PSP) was evaluated for the diagnosis of infection and sepsis in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU).
methodsAll consecutive adult patients with suspected infection or sepsis upon their admission to the ICUs of three multi-speciality hospitals in the UAE were enrolled. CRP, procalcitonin, and PSP levels were measured at admission and repeated within 24-48 h. Patients were categorized into infection vs. non-infection, sepsis vs. non-sepsis groups, and into culture-positive and culture-negative subgroups.
resultsA total of 272 ICU patients were analyzed. All biomarkers could be used to distinguish infection with CRP (AUROC 0.77; 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.70-0.83) and procalcitonin (AUROC 0.75; 95% CI 0.68-0.81) showing fair performance. Moreover, serial monitoring at 24-48 h improved performance, especially for procalcitonin (p = 0.04). Among patients with infection, PSP levels were higher in culture-positive compared to culture-negative patients, but the difference did not reach statistical significance (median 229 vs. 142 ng/ml, p = 0.05). However, all three biomarkers failed to discriminate sepsis with an AUROC of 0.56 (95% CI 0.49-0.64) for CRP, 0.54 (95% CI 0.46-0.62) for procalcitonin, and 0.58 (95% CI 0.50-0.66) for PSP, respectively. Combining biomarkers improved specificity (93.85%) but with reduced accuracy.
conclusionDespite a significant rise in all biomarkers, procalcitonin has overall better performance for diagnosing infections. None of the biomarkers could differentiate sepsis at admission.
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.