Dataset Information

Accuracy of Presepsin in Sepsis Diagnosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

It's difficult to differentiate sepsis from non-sepsis, especially non-infectious SIRS, because no good standard exists for proof of infection. Soluble CD14 subtype (sCD14-ST), recently re-named presepsin, was identified as a new marker for the diagnosis of sepsis in several reports. However, the findings were based on the results of individual clinical trials, rather than a comprehensive and overall estimation. Thus, we conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the pooled accuracy of presepsin in patients with sepsis suspect.

Methods

A comprehensive electronic search was performed via internet retrieval system up to 15 December 2014. Methodological quality assessment was applied by using the QUADAS2 tool. The diagnostic value of presepsin in sepsis was evaluated by using the pooled estimate of sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio, as well as summary receiver operating characteristics curve.

Results

Nine studies with 10 trials and 2159 cases were included in the study. Only two trials had low concerns regarding applicability, whereas all trials were deemed to be at high risk of bias. Heterogeneity existed in the non-threshold effect, but not in the threshold effect. The pooled sensitivity of presepsin for sepsis was 0.78 (0.76-0.80), pooled specificity was 0.83 (0.80-0.85), pooled positive likelihood ratio was 4.63 (3.27-6.55), pooled negative likelihood ratio was 0.22 (0.16-0.30), and pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 21.73 (12.81-36.86). The area under curve of summary receiver operating characteristics curve was 0.89 (95%CI: 0.84 to 0.94) and Q* index was 0.82 (95%CI: 0.77 to 0.87).

Conclusion

This meta-analysis demonstrates that presepsin had some superiority in the management of patients, and may be a helpful and valuable biomarker in early diagnosis of sepsis. However, presepsin showed a moderate diagnostic accuracy in differentiating sepsis from non-sepsis which prevented it from being recommended as a definitive test for diagnosing sepsis in isolation, but the results should be interpreted cautiously.

SUBMITTER: Wu J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4507991 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEarly and accurate diagnosis of sepsis is challenging. Although procalcitonin and presepsin have been identified as potential biomarkers to differentiate between sepsis and other non-infectious causes of systemic inflammation, the diagnostic accuracy of these biomarkers remains controversial. Herein, we performed a comprehensive meta-analysis to assess the overall diagnostic value of procalcitonin and presepsin for the diagnosis of sepsis.MethodsWe searched three electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) for relevant studies. Two authors independently screened articles on the basis of inclusion and exclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and summary receiver operating characteristic curves were estimated. The quality of evidence for diagnostic accuracy in absolute effects, i.e., the number of true or false positives and true or false negatives, gave a particular pre-test probability.ResultsWe included 19 studies (19 observational studies and no randomized controlled trials) that had enrolled 3012 patients. Analyses of summary receiver operating characteristic curves revealed areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves of 0.84 for procalcitonin and 0.87 for presepsin. The pooled sensitivities and specificities were 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.75 to 0.84) and 0.75 (95% confidence interval 0.67 to 0.81) for procalcitonin. For presepsin, these values were 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.80 to 0.88) and 0.73 (95% confidence interval 0.61 to 0.82), respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in both pooled sensitivities (p = 0.48) and specificities (p = 0.57) between procalcitonin and presepsin.ConclusionOur meta-analysis provided evidence that the diagnostic accuracy of procalcitonin and presepsin in detecting infection was similar and that both are useful for early diagnosis of sepsis and subsequent reduction of mortality in critically ill adult patients.Systematic review registrationThe study was registered in PROSPERO under the registration number CRD42016035784.

Project description:Muscle ultrasound is an emerging tool for diagnosing sarcopenia. This review aims to summarize the current knowledge on the diagnostic test accuracy of ultrasound for the diagnosis of sarcopenia. We collected data from Ovid Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Diagnostic test accuracy studies using muscle ultrasound to detect sarcopenia were included. Bivariate random-effects models based on sensitivity and specificity pairs were used to calculate the pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity and the area under the curves (AUCs) of summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC), if possible. We screened 7332 publications and included 17 studies with 2143 participants (mean age range: 52.6-82.8 years). All included studies had a high risk of bias. The study populations, reference standards and ultrasound measurement methods varied across the studies. Lower extremity muscles were commonly studied, whereas muscle thickness (MT) was the most widely measured parameter, followed by the cross-sectional area (CSA). The MTs of the gastrocnemius, rectus femoris, tibialis anterior, soleus, rectus abdominis and geniohyoid muscles showed a moderate diagnostic accuracy for sarcopenia (SROC-AUC 0.83, 8 studies; SROC-AUC 0.78, 5 studies; AUC 0.82, 1 study; AUC 0.76-0.78, 2 studies; AUC 0.76, 1 study; and AUC 0.79, 1 study, respectively), whereas the MTs of vastus intermedius, quadriceps femoris and transversus abdominis muscles showed a low diagnostic accuracy (AUC 0.67-0.71, 3 studies; SROC-AUC 0.64, 4 studies; and AUC 0.68, 1 study, respectively). The CSA of rectus femoris, biceps brachii muscles and gastrocnemius fascicle length also showed a moderate diagnostic accuracy (AUC 0.70-0.90, 3 studies; 0.81, 1 study; and 0.78-0.80, 1 study, respectively), whereas the echo intensity (EI) of rectus femoris, vastus intermedius, quadriceps femoris and biceps brachii muscles showed a low diagnostic accuracy (AUC 0.52-0.67, 2 studies; 0.48-0.50, 1 study; 0.43-0.49, 1 study; and 0.69, 1 study, respectively). The combination of CSA and EI of biceps brachii or rectus femoris muscles was better than either CSA or EI alone for diagnosing sarcopenia. Muscle ultrasound shows a low-to-moderate diagnostic test accuracy for sarcopenia diagnosis depending on different ultrasound parameters, measured muscles, reference standards and study populations. The combination of muscle quality indicators (e.g., EI) and muscle quantity indicators (e.g., MT) might provide better diagnostic test accuracy.