ArticleIntensive care medicine experimental2026
Pancreatic stone protein versus conventional biomarkers for prognostic discrimination in sepsis: a meta-analysis of paired AUC comparisons.
Article 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPancreatic stone protein (PSP) has been proposed as a prognostic biomarker in sepsis, but its comparative performance versus C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin (PCT) remains uncertain.
methodsWe performed a meta-analysis of direct within-study paired AUC comparisons between PSP and CRP and/or PCT in critically ill adults with sepsis, septic shock, or acute infection-related conditions in whom sepsis development or clinically relevant adverse outcomes were prospectively evaluated. Differences in AUC (ΔAUC) were pooled using random-effects models. The principal conservative analysis included one comparison per independent cohort and comparator.
resultsSeven studies comprising 803 unique participants contributed 21 paired comparisons. In the principal conservative analysis, PSP showed a higher prognostic AUC than CRP, with a pooled ΔAUC of 0.179 (95% CI 0.095-0.262; p < 0.001), although between-cohort heterogeneity was substantial (I² = 81.65%). Compared with PCT, the pooled ΔAUC was 0.153 (95% CI 0.114-0.193; p < 0.001), with no observed heterogeneity (I² = 0.00%). The mortality-only sensitivity analysis showed a similar pooled effect for PSP versus CRP (ΔAUC 0.17, 95% CI 0.08-0.26), with substantial heterogeneity persisting, and for PSP versus PCT (ΔAUC 0.153, 95% CI 0.114-0.193), with no observed heterogeneity. Exclusion of the clinically distinct intra-abdominal infection cohort (Michailides et al.) likewise did not materially change the PSP-versus CRP estimate (ΔAUC 0.166, 95% CI 0.077-0.256). The direction and approximate magnitude of the pooled effects were also preserved across alternative assumptions for the within-study correlation.
conclusionsAvailable comparative evidence suggests that PSP may have greater prognostic discrimination than CRP and PCT. The findings were broadly maintained across sensitivity analyses, but the limited number of independent cohorts and substantial heterogeneity in the CRP comparison warrant caution. Further prospective studies are required to confirm these findings and establish their clinical relevance.
trial registrationThis systematic review was prospectively registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD420261340301).
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.