白细胞计数和c反应蛋白对新生儿脓毒症的诊断意义埃塞俄比亚东南部的Asella转诊医院。

Q3 Immunology and Microbiology Open Microbiology Journal Pub Date : 2018-06-29 eCollection Date: 2018-01-01 DOI:10.2174/1874285801812010209
Abebe Sorsa
{"title":"白细胞计数和c反应蛋白对新生儿脓毒症的诊断意义埃塞俄比亚东南部的Asella转诊医院。","authors":"Abebe Sorsa","doi":"10.2174/1874285801812010209","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Nowadays various biochemical markers, such as C-Reactive Protein (CRP), Procalcitonin and tumor necrosis factor alpha, have been proposed as a potential marker for screening neonatal sepsis. In the current study, we tried to see the diagnostic significance of White Blood Cell (WBC) count and CRP in diagnostic screening of neonatal sepsis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A prospective cross-sectional study was conducted from May 2016 to April 2017 in Asella Teaching and Referral Hospital. Data were entered into EPI-INFO version 3.5.1 for cleanup and then exported to SPSS version 17 for further analysis. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) were used to assess the accuracy of CRP and WBC count taking blood culture as gold standard.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data of 303 neonates with clinical sepsis were analyzed. Positive CRP and abnormal WBC were reported in 136(45%) and 99(32.7%) of study subjects respectively. Blood culture turned to be positive in 88(29.4%) of study subjects. The Sensitivity, Specificity, PPV and NPV of WBC count were 59.5 %, 79.6%, 52%, 64.5% respectively while the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of CRP were 65.6%, 78%, 42% and 91% respectively. By combining both WBC and CRP, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV improve to 78.5%, 83%, 60% and 93% respectively. CRP positivity rate was comparable across gram positive and gram negative bacteria while high WBC count were more reported among gram positive sepsis than gram negative ( OR 4.8, (95% CI 1.45-15.87, P 0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Based on this study's finding, it can be concluded that CRP alone or in combination with WBC count showed better diagnostic accuracy in neonatal sepsis.</p>","PeriodicalId":38953,"journal":{"name":"Open Microbiology Journal","volume":"12 ","pages":"209-217"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2174/1874285801812010209","citationCount":"13","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diagnostic Significance of White Blood Cell Count and C-Reactive Protein in Neonatal Sepsis; Asella Referral Hospital, South East Ethiopia.\",\"authors\":\"Abebe Sorsa\",\"doi\":\"10.2174/1874285801812010209\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Nowadays various biochemical markers, such as C-Reactive Protein (CRP), Procalcitonin and tumor necrosis factor alpha, have been proposed as a potential marker for screening neonatal sepsis. In the current study, we tried to see the diagnostic significance of White Blood Cell (WBC) count and CRP in diagnostic screening of neonatal sepsis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A prospective cross-sectional study was conducted from May 2016 to April 2017 in Asella Teaching and Referral Hospital. Data were entered into EPI-INFO version 3.5.1 for cleanup and then exported to SPSS version 17 for further analysis. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) were used to assess the accuracy of CRP and WBC count taking blood culture as gold standard.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data of 303 neonates with clinical sepsis were analyzed. Positive CRP and abnormal WBC were reported in 136(45%) and 99(32.7%) of study subjects respectively. Blood culture turned to be positive in 88(29.4%) of study subjects. The Sensitivity, Specificity, PPV and NPV of WBC count were 59.5 %, 79.6%, 52%, 64.5% respectively while the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of CRP were 65.6%, 78%, 42% and 91% respectively. By combining both WBC and CRP, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV improve to 78.5%, 83%, 60% and 93% respectively. CRP positivity rate was comparable across gram positive and gram negative bacteria while high WBC count were more reported among gram positive sepsis than gram negative ( OR 4.8, (95% CI 1.45-15.87, P 0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Based on this study's finding, it can be concluded that CRP alone or in combination with WBC count showed better diagnostic accuracy in neonatal sepsis.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":38953,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Open Microbiology Journal\",\"volume\":\"12 \",\"pages\":\"209-217\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-06-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2174/1874285801812010209\",\"citationCount\":\"13\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Open Microbiology Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2174/1874285801812010209\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2018/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Immunology and Microbiology\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Microbiology Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/1874285801812010209","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2018/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Immunology and Microbiology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

摘要

目前,各种生化标志物,如c反应蛋白(CRP)、降钙素原和肿瘤坏死因子α,已被提出作为筛查新生儿败血症的潜在标志物。在本研究中,我们试图探讨白细胞(White Blood Cell, WBC)计数和CRP在新生儿脓毒症诊断筛查中的诊断意义。方法:2016年5月至2017年4月在Asella教学转诊医院进行前瞻性横断面研究。数据输入EPI-INFO 3.5.1版本进行清理,然后导出到SPSS 17版本进行进一步分析。以血培养为金标准,采用敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值(PPV)和阴性预测值(NPV)评价CRP和WBC计数的准确性。结果:对303例新生儿败血症的临床资料进行分析。CRP阳性136例(45%),WBC异常99例(32.7%)。88例(29.4%)研究对象血培养呈阳性。WBC计数的敏感性、特异性、PPV和NPV分别为59.5%、79.6%、52%、64.5%,CRP的敏感性、特异性、PPV和NPV分别为65.6%、78%、42%和91%。WBC与CRP联合使用,敏感性、特异性、PPV和NPV分别提高到78.5%、83%、60%和93%。革兰氏阳性菌和革兰氏阴性菌的CRP阳性率相当,而革兰氏阳性脓毒症患者的白细胞计数高于革兰氏阴性(OR 4.8, 95% CI 1.45-15.87, P 0.01)。结论:根据本研究发现,CRP单独或联合WBC计数对新生儿脓毒症的诊断准确率更高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Diagnostic Significance of White Blood Cell Count and C-Reactive Protein in Neonatal Sepsis; Asella Referral Hospital, South East Ethiopia.

Introduction: Nowadays various biochemical markers, such as C-Reactive Protein (CRP), Procalcitonin and tumor necrosis factor alpha, have been proposed as a potential marker for screening neonatal sepsis. In the current study, we tried to see the diagnostic significance of White Blood Cell (WBC) count and CRP in diagnostic screening of neonatal sepsis.

Methods: A prospective cross-sectional study was conducted from May 2016 to April 2017 in Asella Teaching and Referral Hospital. Data were entered into EPI-INFO version 3.5.1 for cleanup and then exported to SPSS version 17 for further analysis. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) were used to assess the accuracy of CRP and WBC count taking blood culture as gold standard.

Results: Data of 303 neonates with clinical sepsis were analyzed. Positive CRP and abnormal WBC were reported in 136(45%) and 99(32.7%) of study subjects respectively. Blood culture turned to be positive in 88(29.4%) of study subjects. The Sensitivity, Specificity, PPV and NPV of WBC count were 59.5 %, 79.6%, 52%, 64.5% respectively while the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of CRP were 65.6%, 78%, 42% and 91% respectively. By combining both WBC and CRP, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV improve to 78.5%, 83%, 60% and 93% respectively. CRP positivity rate was comparable across gram positive and gram negative bacteria while high WBC count were more reported among gram positive sepsis than gram negative ( OR 4.8, (95% CI 1.45-15.87, P 0.01).

Conclusion: Based on this study's finding, it can be concluded that CRP alone or in combination with WBC count showed better diagnostic accuracy in neonatal sepsis.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Open Microbiology Journal
Open Microbiology Journal Immunology and Microbiology-Immunology and Microbiology (all)
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: The Open Microbiology Journal is a peer-reviewed open access journal which publishes research articles, reviews/mini-reviews, case studies, guest edited thematic issues and short communications/letters covering theoretical and practical aspects of Microbial systematics, evolutionary microbiology, immunology, virology, parasitology , bacteriology, mycology, phycology, protozoology, microbial ecology, molecular biology, microbial physiology, biochemistry, microbial pathogenesis, host-microbe interaction, systems microbiology, synthetic microbiology, bioinformatics. The Open Microbiology Journal , a peer-reviewed journal, is an important and reliable source of current information on developments in the field. The emphasis will be on publishing quality papers rapidly and freely available to researchers worldwide.
期刊最新文献
Variations in Bacteriological and Physicochemical Water Quality Characteristics of Asata River, Enugu, Nigeria Molecular Detection of Chicken Anemia Virus from Chickens in Yobe South, Nigeria Isolation of Bacterial Diversity in Oil Mill Water Using Ribosomal Genes Based Fingerprinting from Morocco Characterization of Enterotoxins Produced by Food Isolates of Staphylococcus aureus Optimization of Extracellular Polysaccharide Substances from Lactic Acid Bacteria Isolated from Fermented Dairy Products
×
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