ReviewInfection and drug resistance2026
Blood Host-Response mRNA Assays in Adult Acute Care: Diagnostic Performance, Translational Evidence, and the Clinical Implementation Gap.
Review in Infection and drug resistance, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Blood host-response messenger RNA (mRNA) assays provide a complementary approach to evaluating suspected acute infection by measuring the patient's transcriptional response. Fixed multigene assays can distinguish infection from noninfectious inflammation and estimate bacterial or viral likelihood, and several rapid platforms have demonstrated clinically relevant diagnostic performance in emergency and critical-care populations. This critical narrative review synthesizes representative evidence from fixed blood host-response mRNA assays in adult acute care. Structured searches of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science Core Collection were completed through August 12, 2026, and were supplemented by citation tracking and assay-specific update searches through September 2, 2026. We examine evidence by assay generation, patient-source independence, prespecified operating points, and workflow characteristics, with particular attention to the distinction between diagnostic performance and clinical utility. Current evidence is strongest for clinical validity and implementation feasibility, whereas evidence that test-guided use safely improves antimicrobial management or patient outcomes remains limited. We therefore propose a staged conceptual framework linking fixed-assay validation and prespecified operating points to representative recruitment, end-to-end workflow, clinician-visible reporting, test-guided clinical evaluation, and prospectively measured safety, patient, and resource outcomes. This framework is intended to organize translational evidence and identify the steps still required before routine clinical utility can be established.
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.