Diagnostic performances of procalcitonin and C-reactive protein for sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 4.2 4区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
European Journal of Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2025-08-01 Epub Date: 2025-04-11 DOI:10.1097/MEJ.0000000000001235
Chiao-Li Chuang, Hsin-Tzu Yeh, Kuang-Yu Niu, Chen-Bin Chen, Chen-June Seak, Chieh-Ching Yen
{"title":"Diagnostic performances of procalcitonin and C-reactive protein for sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Chiao-Li Chuang, Hsin-Tzu Yeh, Kuang-Yu Niu, Chen-Bin Chen, Chen-June Seak, Chieh-Ching Yen","doi":"10.1097/MEJ.0000000000001235","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Sepsis-3 2016 definition defined sepsis as a life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. Procalcitonin (PCT) and C-reactive protein (CRP) have been widely studied for the detection of sepsis according to the former definitions. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performances of PCT and CRP for sepsis, according to the Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3 definitions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched. Original articles that reported both diagnostic performances of PCT and CRP for sepsis were included. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, likelihood ratio, and the area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were calculated using the multiple thresholds model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty-four studies with 10 755 patients between 1997 and 2024 were included. PCT exhibited a higher pooled AUC of 0.74 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.62-0.84] compared with CRP, which had an AUC of 0.67 (95% CI, 0.56-0.77). Using sensitivity weighting of 50%, the optimal PCT and CRP cutoffs were 0.54 ng/ml (sensitivity: 0.70; specificity: 0.67) and 48 mg/L (sensitivity: 0.72; specificity: 0.55), respectively. The pooled AUC of PCT did not significantly differ between the Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3 criteria. Sensitivity analyses showed overall performance was higher using the traditional bivariate model than the multiple thresholds model.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although PCT seems to slightly outperform CRP for the diagnosis of sepsis, its discriminatory power remains limited, highlighting the need for additional tools to improve sepsis diagnosis.</p>","PeriodicalId":11893,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"248-258"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MEJ.0000000000001235","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The Sepsis-3 2016 definition defined sepsis as a life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. Procalcitonin (PCT) and C-reactive protein (CRP) have been widely studied for the detection of sepsis according to the former definitions. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performances of PCT and CRP for sepsis, according to the Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3 definitions.

Methods: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched. Original articles that reported both diagnostic performances of PCT and CRP for sepsis were included. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, likelihood ratio, and the area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were calculated using the multiple thresholds model.

Results: Forty-four studies with 10 755 patients between 1997 and 2024 were included. PCT exhibited a higher pooled AUC of 0.74 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.62-0.84] compared with CRP, which had an AUC of 0.67 (95% CI, 0.56-0.77). Using sensitivity weighting of 50%, the optimal PCT and CRP cutoffs were 0.54 ng/ml (sensitivity: 0.70; specificity: 0.67) and 48 mg/L (sensitivity: 0.72; specificity: 0.55), respectively. The pooled AUC of PCT did not significantly differ between the Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3 criteria. Sensitivity analyses showed overall performance was higher using the traditional bivariate model than the multiple thresholds model.

Conclusions: Although PCT seems to slightly outperform CRP for the diagnosis of sepsis, its discriminatory power remains limited, highlighting the need for additional tools to improve sepsis diagnosis.

降钙素原和c反应蛋白对败血症的诊断性能:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:2016年脓毒症-3定义将脓毒症定义为由宿主对感染反应失调引起的危及生命的器官功能障碍。根据原降钙素(PCT)和c反应蛋白(CRP)的定义,在脓毒症的检测中得到了广泛的研究。根据脓毒症-2和脓毒症-3的定义,本研究旨在评估PCT和CRP对脓毒症的诊断性能。方法:检索PubMed、Embase和Cochrane图书馆。包括报道PCT和CRP对脓毒症诊断性能的原始文章。采用多阈值模型计算合并敏感性、特异性、诊断优势比、似然比和总受试者工作特征曲线下面积(AUC)。结果:1997年至2024年间纳入44项研究,共10755例患者。PCT的合并AUC为0.74[95%可信区间(CI), 0.62-0.84],而CRP的合并AUC为0.67 (95% CI, 0.56-0.77)。敏感度加权为50%时,PCT和CRP的最佳临界值为0.54 ng/ml(敏感度:0.70;特异性:0.67)和48 mg/L(敏感性:0.72;特异性:0.55)。脓毒症-2和脓毒症-3标准的PCT合并AUC无显著差异。敏感性分析表明,使用传统的双变量模型比多阈值模型的总体性能更高。结论:尽管PCT在脓毒症的诊断方面似乎略优于CRP,但其鉴别能力仍然有限,因此需要更多的工具来改善脓毒症的诊断。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
27.30%
发文量
180
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Emergency Medicine is the official journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine. It is devoted to serving the European emergency medicine community and to promoting European standards of training, diagnosis and care in this rapidly growing field. Published bimonthly, the Journal offers original papers on all aspects of acute injury and sudden illness, including: emergency medicine, anaesthesiology, cardiology, disaster medicine, intensive care, internal medicine, orthopaedics, paediatrics, toxicology and trauma care. It addresses issues on the organization of emergency services in hospitals and in the community and examines postgraduate training from European and global perspectives. The Journal also publishes papers focusing on the different models of emergency healthcare delivery in Europe and beyond. With a multidisciplinary approach, the European Journal of Emergency Medicine publishes scientific research, topical reviews, news of meetings and events of interest to the emergency medicine community. Submitted articles undergo a preliminary review by the editor. Some articles may be returned to authors without further consideration. Those being considered for publication will undergo further assessment and peer-review by the editors and those invited to do so from a reviewer pool. ​
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信