↓ Skip to main content

Biomarkers for diagnosis of sepsis in patients with systemic inflammatory response syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
105 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
146 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Biomarkers for diagnosis of sepsis in patients with systemic inflammatory response syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
SpringerPlus, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40064-016-3591-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yong Liu, Jun-huan Hou, Qing Li, Kui-jun Chen, Shu-Nan Wang, Jian-min Wang

Abstract

Sepsis is one of the most common diseases that seriously threaten human health. Although a large number of markers related to sepsis have been reported in the last two decades, the diagnostic accuracy of these biomarkers remains unclear due to the lack of similar baselines among studies. Therefore, we conducted a large systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic value of biomarkers from studies that included non-infectious systemic inflammatory response syndrome patients as a control group. We searched Medline, Embase and the reference lists of identified studies beginning in April 2014. The last retrieval was updated in September 2016. Ultimately, 86 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Sixty biomarkers and 10,438 subjects entered the final analysis. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves for the 7 most common biomarkers, including procalcitonin, C-reactive protein, interleukin 6, soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells-1, presepsin, lipopolysaccharide binding protein and CD64, were 0.85, 0.77, 0.79, 0.85, 0.88, 0.71 and 0.96, respectively. The remaining 53 biomarkers exhibited obvious variances in diagnostic value and methodological quality. Although some biomarkers displayed moderate or above moderate diagnostic value for sepsis, the limitations of the methodological quality and sample size may weaken these findings. Currently, we still lack an ideal biomarker to aid in the diagnosis of sepsis. In the future, biomarkers with better diagnostic value as well as a combined diagnosis using multiple biomarkers are expected to solve the challenge of the diagnosis of sepsis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 146 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 <1%
Unknown 145 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 14%
Researcher 18 12%
Student > Bachelor 14 10%
Student > Master 12 8%
Other 10 7%
Other 30 21%
Unknown 41 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 57 39%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 6%
Engineering 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 3%
Other 18 12%
Unknown 48 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 August 2019.
All research outputs
#6,185,807
of 22,925,760 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#371
of 1,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,798
of 419,166 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#17
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,925,760 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,850 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 419,166 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.