Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42842203›Full record

ArticleInfection2026

Intensive care infection score outperforms inflammatory biomarkers in detecting infection in critically ill patients.

Noelle Nacke, Christian Hönemann, Bastian Blömer, Stefanie Klatte, Alexander Zarbock, Jens-Christian Schewe, Marie-Luise Rübsam

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Infection, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Noelle NackeDepartment of Anesthesiology, Operative Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Therapy, University Hospital Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, 48149, Münster, Germany.
Christian HönemannDepartment of Anesthesiology, Operative Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Therapy, University Hospital Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, 48149, Münster, Germany.
Bastian BlömerDepartment of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Therapy, University Medical Centre Rostock, Schillingallee 35, 18057, Rostock, Germany.
Stefanie KlatteMedical and Scientific Affairs Department, Sysmex Europe SE, Deelboege 19D, 22297, Hamburg, Germany.
Alexander ZarbockDepartment of Anesthesiology, Operative Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Therapy, University Hospital Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, 48149, Münster, Germany.
Jens-Christian ScheweDepartment of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Therapy, University Medical Centre Rostock, Schillingallee 35, 18057, Rostock, Germany.
Marie-Luise RübsamDepartment of Anesthesia and Operative Intensive Care Medicine, St. Marienhospital Vechta, Marienstrasse 6 - 8, 49377, Vechta, Germany. marie-luise.ruebsam@kh-vec.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6678-7297

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIdentification of infection in critically ill patients remains challenging, as conventional biomarkers such as C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin (PCT) and white blood cell count (WBC) frequently lack diagnostic accuracy. The Intensive Care Infection Score (ICIS), a host-response biomarker derived from hematological parameters, reflects both innate and adaptive immune response.

methodsTo compare diagnostic performance of ICIS, CRP, PCT, and WBC, expert adjudication was used to determine presence or absence of infection. Diagnostic accuracy parameters including receiver operating characteristic curve analysis were calculated.

results770 samples from 382 critically ill patients were included. ICIS demonstrated the highest diagnostic accuracy with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.914 (95% CI 0.892-0.933), compared with CRP (AUC 0.889; 95% CI 0.865-0.910), PCT (AUC 0.847; 95% CI 0.819-0.871), and WBC (AUC 0.697; 95% CI 0.663-0.729). At the optimal cut-off value of > 3, ICIS achieved a sensitivity of 80.7% and specificity of 89.3%. ICIS showed the lowest false-positive rate (10.7%) and a negative predictive value of 88.7%.

conclusionICIS demonstrated good diagnostic performance in critically ill patients and can contribute to antimicrobial stewardship as a novel host-response diagnostic.

Indexed as

Cellular biomarkerICISInfection diagnosticInflammatory biomarkerIntensive Care Infection ScoreSepsis

Identifiers

PMID42842203

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.