Role of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio in diagnosing neonatal sepsis.

Narra J Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-31 DOI:10.52225/narra.v4i2.763
Beby S Hasibuan, Guslihan Dasatjipta, Bugis M Lubis, Sanny Sanny
{"title":"Role of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio in diagnosing neonatal sepsis.","authors":"Beby S Hasibuan, Guslihan Dasatjipta, Bugis M Lubis, Sanny Sanny","doi":"10.52225/narra.v4i2.763","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Clinical manifestations of neonatal sepsis are often unspecified. Therefore, sepsis biomarkers could be used to support diagnosis while waiting for blood culture results, such as the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR). The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of NLR and PLR as diagnostic markers in neonatal sepsis. A cross-sectional study was conducted at Haji Adam Malik General Hospital, Medan, Indonesia, from April to October 2019. This study included neonates aged less than 28 days, diagnosed with suspected sepsis, and had no previous history of antibiotics administration. Patients underwent clinical assessment, laboratory examination, and blood culture. Patients were grouped into sepsis and non-sepsis based on the blood culture results. The median hematological examination and the range of NLR and PLR in both the sepsis and non-sepsis groups were subjected to analysis using the Mann-Whitney U test to assess differences. NLR and PLR optimal cut-off values were determined using a receiver operator curve (ROC) with a confidence interval of 95%. A total of 137 neonates were enrolled, of which 49 were classified as sepsis and 89 as non-sepsis based on blood culture results. The optimal cutoff values for NLR and PLR were 2.75 and 11.73. Using those cutoff values, NLR and PLR could predict neonatal sepsis with sensitivities of 52.1% and 47.9%, specificities of 50.6% and 47.2%, area under the curve (AUC) of 0.46 and 0.47, with <i>p</i>=0.525 and <i>p</i>=0.662, respectively. Further investigation is warranted to refine the NLR and PLR utility and enhance diagnostic accuracy in clinical practices.</p>","PeriodicalId":517416,"journal":{"name":"Narra J","volume":"4 2","pages":"e763"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11391992/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Narra J","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52225/narra.v4i2.763","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Clinical manifestations of neonatal sepsis are often unspecified. Therefore, sepsis biomarkers could be used to support diagnosis while waiting for blood culture results, such as the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR). The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of NLR and PLR as diagnostic markers in neonatal sepsis. A cross-sectional study was conducted at Haji Adam Malik General Hospital, Medan, Indonesia, from April to October 2019. This study included neonates aged less than 28 days, diagnosed with suspected sepsis, and had no previous history of antibiotics administration. Patients underwent clinical assessment, laboratory examination, and blood culture. Patients were grouped into sepsis and non-sepsis based on the blood culture results. The median hematological examination and the range of NLR and PLR in both the sepsis and non-sepsis groups were subjected to analysis using the Mann-Whitney U test to assess differences. NLR and PLR optimal cut-off values were determined using a receiver operator curve (ROC) with a confidence interval of 95%. A total of 137 neonates were enrolled, of which 49 were classified as sepsis and 89 as non-sepsis based on blood culture results. The optimal cutoff values for NLR and PLR were 2.75 and 11.73. Using those cutoff values, NLR and PLR could predict neonatal sepsis with sensitivities of 52.1% and 47.9%, specificities of 50.6% and 47.2%, area under the curve (AUC) of 0.46 and 0.47, with p=0.525 and p=0.662, respectively. Further investigation is warranted to refine the NLR and PLR utility and enhance diagnostic accuracy in clinical practices.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
中性粒细胞与淋巴细胞比率和血小板与淋巴细胞比率在诊断新生儿败血症中的作用。
新生儿败血症的临床表现往往不明确。因此,在等待血培养结果期间,败血症生物标志物(如中性粒细胞与淋巴细胞比值(NLR)和血小板与淋巴细胞比值(PLR))可用于辅助诊断。本研究旨在评估 NLR 和 PLR 作为新生儿败血症诊断指标的作用。这项横断面研究于2019年4月至10月在印度尼西亚棉兰市的哈吉-亚当-马利克总医院进行。该研究纳入了年龄小于28天、被诊断为疑似败血症且既往无抗生素用药史的新生儿。患者接受了临床评估、实验室检查和血液培养。根据血液培养结果将患者分为败血症和非败血症两组。脓毒症组和非脓毒症组的血液检查中位数以及 NLR 和 PLR 的范围采用 Mann-Whitney U 检验进行分析,以评估差异。采用置信区间为 95% 的受体运算曲线(ROC)确定 NLR 和 PLR 的最佳临界值。共登记了 137 名新生儿,根据血液培养结果,其中 49 名被归类为败血症,89 名被归类为非败血症。NLR 和 PLR 的最佳临界值分别为 2.75 和 11.73。使用这些临界值,NLR 和 PLR 预测新生儿败血症的灵敏度分别为 52.1% 和 47.9%,特异度分别为 50.6% 和 47.2%,曲线下面积(AUC)分别为 0.46 和 0.47,P=0.525 和 P=0.662。为完善 NLR 和 PLR 的实用性并提高临床实践中的诊断准确性,有必要进行进一步研究。
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Determinants of mortality in relationship between clinical and laboratory characteristics with the outcomes of children with diphtheria: A cross-sectional study at a national hospital of Sumatra region in 2020–2023 Determinants of COVID-19 severity and mortality in children: A retrospective and multicenter cohort study in Medan, Indonesia Improving maternal health literacy among low-income pregnant women: A systematic review A fruit fly-based approach to unraveling enteropathy-causing pharmaceuticals. A potential treatment for erectile dysfunction: Effect of platelet-rich plasma administration on axon and collagen regeneration in cavernous nerve injury.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1