Comparison of the diagnostic accuracies of various biomarkers and scoring systems for sepsis: A systematic review and Bayesian diagnostic test accuracy network meta-analysis
Authors' conclusion
The best diagnostic accuracy for sepsis was shown by CD64, with a moderate quality of evidence.
Study context
- Population
- Patients assessed for sepsis (post-2016 redefinition); studies 2016–2023
- Participants
- 34,234 patients · 78 studies
- Comparison
- Biomarkers vs quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) and SIRS criteria for detecting sepsis
- Outcome
- Diagnostic accuracy for sepsis (superiority index, diagnostic OR)
Methodological detailsbivariate hierarchical random effects arm-based beta-binomial models, multivariable meta-regression, Searches of PubMed, EMBASE and Scopus, January 2016–December 2023
- Bivariate hierarchical random effects arm-based beta-binomial models
- Multivariable meta-regression
- Searches of PubMed, EMBASE and Scopus, January 2016–December 2023
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
Diagnostic accuracy for sepsis
| Group | Diagnostic OR | 95% CrI | Quality of evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| CD64 | 20.17 | 8.39-38.61 | moderate |
| sTREM-1 | 18.73 | 1.31-83.98 | low |
| Presepsin | 10.04 | 6.71-14.24 | low |
Diagnostic OR
CD6420.17
sTREM-118.73
Presepsin10.04
95% CrI
CD648.39-38.61
sTREM-11.31-83.98
Presepsin6.71-14.24
Quality of evidence
CD64moderate
sTREM-1low
Presepsinlow
Further pooled results
Sources of heterogeneity (meta-regression)
- Significant heterogeneity sources: study design, proportion of sepsis, sample size, risk of bias (patient selection)
Original publication
Comparison of the diagnostic accuracies of various biomarkers and scoring systems for sepsis: A systematic review and Bayesian diagnostic test accuracy network meta-analysis. J Crit Care. Published 16 April 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →