We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
META-ANALYSIS
Performance of procalcitonin in diagnosing parapneumonic pleural effusions: A clinical study and meta-analysis.
Medicine (Baltimore) 2017 August
BACKGROUND: Parapneumonic pleural effusion (PPE) is a common complication of pneumonia. The accurate diagnosis of PPE remains a challenge. Recent studies suggest that procalcitonin (PCT) emerges as a potential biomarker for PPE. Our study aimed to determine the diagnostic value of PCT for PPE by a clinical study and summarize the overall diagnostic performance of PCT through a meta-analysis.
METHODS: Demographic and clinical data of the patients with PPE and controls were collected in our clinical study. The diagnostic performances of serum PCT (s-PCT) were analyzed via receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, using area under the curve (AUC) as a measure of accuracy. Literature databases were systematically searched for the studies examining the accuracy of PCT for diagnosing PPE. Data on sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative likelihood ratio (PLR/NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were pooled. Summary ROC curves and AUC were used to evaluate overall test performance.
RESULTS: In our clinical study, 47 patients with PPE and 101 controls were included. The s-PCT levels were significantly increased in the setting of PPE (5.44 ± 9.82 ng/mL) compared with malignant PE (0.15 ± 0.19 ng/mL), tuberculous PE (0.18 ± 0.16 ng/mL), and transudates (0.09 ± 0.03 ng/mL) (P < .001). Using a cutoff value of 0.195 ng/mL, the sensitivity and specificity of s-PCT in diagnosing PPE were 0.83 and 0.80, respectively, and AUC was 0.89. In addition, 11 studies were included in our meta-analysis. Summary performance estimates for s-PCT in diagnosing PPE were as follows: sensitivity, 0.78 (95% CI: 0.71-0.84); specificity, 0.74 (95% CI: 0.69-0.78); PLR, 3.46 (95% CI: 2.09-5.74); NLR, 0.27 (95% CI: 0.14-0.54); DOR, 12.37 (95% CI: 4.34-41.17); and AUC, 0.84. The corresponding estimates for p-PCT were as follows: sensitivity, 0.62 (95% CI: 0.57-0.67); specificity, 0.71 (95% CI: 0.68-0.75); PLR 2.31 (95% CI: 1.81-2.95); NLR, 0.47 (95% CI: 0.35-0.63); DOR, 5.48 (95% CI: 3.07-9.77); and AUC, 0.80.
CONCLUSION: Both s-PCT and p-PCT might have modest performance in diagnosing PPE. However, more studies on a large scale should be performed to confirm our findings.
METHODS: Demographic and clinical data of the patients with PPE and controls were collected in our clinical study. The diagnostic performances of serum PCT (s-PCT) were analyzed via receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, using area under the curve (AUC) as a measure of accuracy. Literature databases were systematically searched for the studies examining the accuracy of PCT for diagnosing PPE. Data on sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative likelihood ratio (PLR/NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were pooled. Summary ROC curves and AUC were used to evaluate overall test performance.
RESULTS: In our clinical study, 47 patients with PPE and 101 controls were included. The s-PCT levels were significantly increased in the setting of PPE (5.44 ± 9.82 ng/mL) compared with malignant PE (0.15 ± 0.19 ng/mL), tuberculous PE (0.18 ± 0.16 ng/mL), and transudates (0.09 ± 0.03 ng/mL) (P < .001). Using a cutoff value of 0.195 ng/mL, the sensitivity and specificity of s-PCT in diagnosing PPE were 0.83 and 0.80, respectively, and AUC was 0.89. In addition, 11 studies were included in our meta-analysis. Summary performance estimates for s-PCT in diagnosing PPE were as follows: sensitivity, 0.78 (95% CI: 0.71-0.84); specificity, 0.74 (95% CI: 0.69-0.78); PLR, 3.46 (95% CI: 2.09-5.74); NLR, 0.27 (95% CI: 0.14-0.54); DOR, 12.37 (95% CI: 4.34-41.17); and AUC, 0.84. The corresponding estimates for p-PCT were as follows: sensitivity, 0.62 (95% CI: 0.57-0.67); specificity, 0.71 (95% CI: 0.68-0.75); PLR 2.31 (95% CI: 1.81-2.95); NLR, 0.47 (95% CI: 0.35-0.63); DOR, 5.48 (95% CI: 3.07-9.77); and AUC, 0.80.
CONCLUSION: Both s-PCT and p-PCT might have modest performance in diagnosing PPE. However, more studies on a large scale should be performed to confirm our findings.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
Perioperative echocardiographic strain analysis: what anesthesiologists should know.Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 2024 April 11
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app