ReviewIntensive care medicine experimental2026
Decoy receptor 3 as a diagnostic marker for sepsis: a meta-analysis.
Review in Intensive care medicine experimental, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveSepsis is a syndrome of systemic inflammatory reaction caused by a severe infection, leading to multiorgan damage and a high mortality rate. In recent years, several studies have shown that decoy receptor 3 (DcR3) is positively correlated with the severity of infection, and its high specificity and sensitivity in the diagnosis of sepsis is expected to serve as a novel marker for sepsis. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of decoy receptor 3 (DcR3) for sepsis in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting.
methodsWe conducted a comprehensive search in six databases, extracting data independently.Studies were included if they assessed the diagnostic accuracy of DcR3 for sepsis in the intensive care unit (ICU). A meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model to calculate pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC).
resultsFour records assessing 681 patients were included in this meta-analysis. In distinguishing sepsis from normal controls, DcR3 demonstrated exceptional discriminatory power with an AUC of 0.99. The pooled sensitivity was 0.98 (95% CI 0.95-0.99), and the pooled specificity was 0.95 (95% CI 0.92-0.97). The pooled PLR was 21.21 (95% CI 12.71-35.40), the pooled NLR was 0.02 (95% CI 0.01-0.06), and the pooled DOR was 878.26 (95% CI 217.36-21062.55). In differentiating sepsis from systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), the AUC was 0.95. The pooled sensitivity was 0.93 (95% CI 0.87-0.96), and the pooled specificity was 0.87 (95% CI 0.68-0.95). The pooled PLR was 6.89 (95% CI 2.67-18.26), the pooled NLR was 0.08 (95% CI 0.04-0.15), and the pooled DOR was 86.17 (95% CI 27.35-271.55).
conclusionOn the basis of our meta-analysis, DcR3 is a helpful marker for early diagnosis of sepsis on ICU admission. However, the findings are limited by the small number of included studies and significant heterogeneity. Further large-scale, multicenter prospective studies are warranted to validate these results.
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.