↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS ONE, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 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
Accuracy of Presepsin in Sepsis Diagnosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Published in
PLoS ONE, July 2015
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0133057
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jiayuan Wu, Liren Hu, Gaohua Zhang, Fenping Wu, Taiping He

Abstract

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. 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. 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). 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.

Twitter Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 4%
Croatia 1 2%
Hungary 1 2%
Unknown 52 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 18%
Student > Postgraduate 8 14%
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Other 7 13%
Researcher 5 9%
Other 12 21%
Unknown 7 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 64%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Mathematics 1 2%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 11 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 29 April 2016.
All research outputs
#3,723,555
of 7,625,034 outputs
Outputs from PLoS ONE
#56,842
of 108,557 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#110,290
of 227,588 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS ONE
#3,448
of 6,387 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,625,034 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 108,557 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 227,588 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6,387 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.