ReviewCureus2026
Procalcitonin-Guided Antimicrobial Therapy: Current Evidence for Clinical Decision-Making and Practical Limitations.
Review in Cureus, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Antimicrobial resistance and unnecessary antibiotic exposure remain significant problems in clinical practice. Procalcitonin (PCT) has emerged as a clinically relevant biomarker to assist in antibiotic decision-making in patients with suspected bacterial infections. PCT levels may increase in response to bacterial infection and changes in disease activity; however, its diagnostic performance and clinical value are context-dependent, and interpretation of its results requires careful consideration of its limitations. This structured narrative review aimed to examine the available evidence on PCT-guided antibiotic therapy, focusing on antibiotic decision-making and the clinical limitations affecting its use in practice. A literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. The review primarily included randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and widely recognized clinical guidelines. Evidence supports the use of PCT mainly for guiding antibiotic discontinuation, helping to reduce antibiotic exposure without adversely affecting major clinical outcomes. In contrast, its role in guiding antibiotic initiation remains limited, particularly in sepsis, where early empirical antibiotic treatment is essential. Non-infectious inflammatory conditions can cause false-positive elevations in PCT. Conversely, early or localized infections may result in false-negative or lower PCT levels. The timing of measurement and variation in threshold values can also affect the interpretation of PCT results. Differences in the application of guideline recommendations across clinical settings may also influence its clinical utility. PCT can support antimicrobial stewardship and antibiotic decision-making but should not be used as a standalone diagnostic tool. PCT results should always be interpreted within the clinical context, alongside clinical assessment and other available diagnostic information, while considering the limitations of the biomarker and the strength of the supporting evidence.
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.