ArticleBMC infectious diseases2026
Diagnostic utility of plasma heparin-binding protein and procalcitonin among patients with bacterial infections: a single-center retrospective study.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the discriminatory capacity of plasma heparin-binding protein (HBP), procalcitonin (PCT), and composite immune inflammatory indices in differentiating bacterial infections from non-infection states, as well as to explore their potential for Gram classification and severity stratification.
methodsA single-center retrospective case-control study enrolled 65 patients with confirmed bacterial infection and 135 non-infected controls. Plasma HBP, PCT, and complete blood count-derived indices were measured from initial blood samples collected within 24 hours of admission. Group comparisons were performed using statistical tests, and diagnostic performance of each biomarker was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic curves.
resultsHBP levels were significantly higher in infected patients than in controls (p < 0.001) and demonstrated the best discriminative performance among all markers (AUC = 0.86). Multivariable analysis identified HBP, monocyte, and lymphocyte count as independent predictors for Gram-positive infections, while HBP, PCT, and neutrophil count were associated with Gram-negative infections. Notably, HBP levels increased progressively from the non-infected group (19.45 ng/ml) to PCT-defined infection localized infection (35.13 ng/ml) and PCT-defined infection severe infection (111.95 ng/ml, p < 0.001), supporting its utility in PCT-defined severity stratification.
conclusionHBP is a promising biomarker for diagnosing bacterial infections, particularly Gram-negative infection, and for stratifying PCT-defined infection severity. However, given the exploratory nature of the Gram classification findings and the single-center retrospective design, these results require validation in larger prospective cohorts.
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.