SynthesisBMC gastroenterology2026
Procalcitonin for diagnosing infected pancreatic necrosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC gastroenterology, 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
backgroundInfected pancreatic necrosis (IPN) ranks among the most severe local complications of acute pancreatitis (AP) and plays a central role in driving AP-related death. Procalcitonin (PCT), a serum biomarker that responds preferentially to bacterial infection, has theoretical promise for differentiating infected from sterile necrosis. Earlier systematic reviews, though, are limited by small sample sizes, shallow subgroup analysis, and a lack of formal evidence grading. An updated synthesis that focuses specifically on IPN as the clinical endpoint is missing.
aimThis meta-analysis primarily aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of PCT for detecting IPN in patients with AP. Prediction of severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) was assessed as a secondary analysis, and evidence on PCT-guided antibiotic therapy was summarized as an exploratory analysis.
methodsPubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for original studies that assessed PCT for diagnosing IPN (primary objective), predicting severe AP (SAP; secondary analysis), or guiding antibiotic use in AP patients. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratios were calculated through a bivariate random-effects model. Hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) curves were plotted. Pre-specified subgroup analyses covered PCT cutoff value, sampling time, study design, and reference standard. QUADAS-2 was used for bias assessment; evidence certainty was rated with the GRADE-DTA framework.
resultsThirty-nine studies met inclusion criteria: 16 on PCT for IPN diagnosis (2,156 patients; 512 IPN cases), 20 on PCT for SAP prediction (3,386 patients; 934 SAP cases), and 3 randomized controlled trials on PCT-guided antibiotic therapy. For IPN diagnosis, pooled sensitivity was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.75-0.87), pooled specificity 0.84 (95% CI: 0.78-0.89), and area under the curve (AUC) 0.90 (95% CI: 0.87-0.92); GRADE certainty was low. For SAP prediction, pooled sensitivity was 0.83, specificity 0.76, AUC 0.87; evidence certainty was low. A cutoff of 1.0-3.5 ng/mL gave the best trade-off between sensitivity and specificity (AUC 0.92). Serial dynamic monitoring (AUC 0.93) outperformed single admission measurement (AUC 0.85) by a wide margin.
conclusionsPCT shows good overall ability to identify IPN and may be incorporated as an adjunctive biomarker for IPN risk stratification. A cutoff range of 1.0-3.5 ng/mL and serial monitoring may help clinical risk stratification. These cutoff-related findings require external validation in prospective multicenter studies with pre-specified cutoffs and standardized adjudicated reference criteria integrating clinical, radiologic, microbiologic, and procedural evidence, with culture confirmation incorporated when drainage or necrosectomy is clinically performed.
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.