Comparing the diagnosis accuracy and efficacy of presepsin (sCD14) and nCD64 in neonatal sepsis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

IF 2.3 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health Pub Date : 2025-02-04 DOI:10.1016/j.cegh.2025.101957
Amit Kumar Mittal , Mamta Patel , Dolat Singh Shekhawat , Pratibha Singh , Kuldeep Singh
{"title":"Comparing the diagnosis accuracy and efficacy of presepsin (sCD14) and nCD64 in neonatal sepsis: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Amit Kumar Mittal ,&nbsp;Mamta Patel ,&nbsp;Dolat Singh Shekhawat ,&nbsp;Pratibha Singh ,&nbsp;Kuldeep Singh","doi":"10.1016/j.cegh.2025.101957","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Neonatal sepsis is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality among newborns, requiring early and accurate diagnosis for effective treatment. sCD14 and nCD64 have emerged as promising biomarkers due to their enhanced sensitivity and specificity compared to traditional methods.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To evaluate and compare the diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility of sCD14 and nCD64 in detecting neonatal sepsis.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted, including studies that assessed the sensitivity, specificity, and overall diagnostic performance of sCD14 and nCD64. Various key metrics such as DOR, PLR, NLR, and AUC were analyzed.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Eleven studies with 1303 neonates (777 sepsis cases, 526 controls) were included. For sCD14, the pooled sensitivity was 0.82 (95 % CI: 0.65–0.92), specificity was 0.79 (95 % CI: 0.59–0.91), and AUC was 0.88. For nCD64, pooled sensitivity was 0.84 (95 % CI: 0.78–0.89), specificity was 0.79 (95 % CI: 0.65–0.88), and AUC was 0.89. Both biomarkers demonstrated high diagnostic reliability, with DORs of 18 (sCD14) and 17.04 (nCD64).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>sCD14 and nCD64 show significant potential as reliable biomarkers for the early diagnosis of neonatal sepsis. High diagnostic accuracy makes them valuable tools for improving clinical decision-making. However, further studies are needed to validate their practical implementation in routine neonatal care, feasibility, and cost-effectiveness.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":46404,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health","volume":"32 ","pages":"Article 101957"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213398425000466","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Neonatal sepsis is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality among newborns, requiring early and accurate diagnosis for effective treatment. sCD14 and nCD64 have emerged as promising biomarkers due to their enhanced sensitivity and specificity compared to traditional methods.

Objective

To evaluate and compare the diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility of sCD14 and nCD64 in detecting neonatal sepsis.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted, including studies that assessed the sensitivity, specificity, and overall diagnostic performance of sCD14 and nCD64. Various key metrics such as DOR, PLR, NLR, and AUC were analyzed.

Results

Eleven studies with 1303 neonates (777 sepsis cases, 526 controls) were included. For sCD14, the pooled sensitivity was 0.82 (95 % CI: 0.65–0.92), specificity was 0.79 (95 % CI: 0.59–0.91), and AUC was 0.88. For nCD64, pooled sensitivity was 0.84 (95 % CI: 0.78–0.89), specificity was 0.79 (95 % CI: 0.65–0.88), and AUC was 0.89. Both biomarkers demonstrated high diagnostic reliability, with DORs of 18 (sCD14) and 17.04 (nCD64).

Conclusions

sCD14 and nCD64 show significant potential as reliable biomarkers for the early diagnosis of neonatal sepsis. High diagnostic accuracy makes them valuable tools for improving clinical decision-making. However, further studies are needed to validate their practical implementation in routine neonatal care, feasibility, and cost-effectiveness.
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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health
Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
7.70%
发文量
218
审稿时长
66 days
期刊介绍: Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health (CEGH) is a multidisciplinary journal and it is published four times (March, June, September, December) a year. The mandate of CEGH is to promote articles on clinical epidemiology with focus on developing countries in the context of global health. We also accept articles from other countries. It publishes original research work across all disciplines of medicine and allied sciences, related to clinical epidemiology and global health. The journal publishes Original articles, Review articles, Evidence Summaries, Letters to the Editor. All articles published in CEGH are peer-reviewed and published online for immediate access and citation.
期刊最新文献
Celiac disease and COVID-19: Leveraging health registries for crucial insights and public health strategies Geospatial insights into chronic bronchitis: Evaluating hotspots and environmental factors in MUDHRA-cohort of Mysuru district, India Harnessing ensemble deep learning models for precise detection of gynaecological cancers Prevalence and mortality of infective endocarditis in Kazakhstan: A nationwide epidemiological study (2018–2022) Assessment of 2021 surveillance system for under-five children with pneumonia in Bantul Regency, Indonesia
×
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