{"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.
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.