- View MPLCT007 - Diagnostic test accuracy of procalcitonin and Clinical Effectiveness of Newborn Screening for Spinal Muscular Atrophy
- View MPLCT008- Diagnostic test accuracy of procalcitonin and C-reactive protein for predicting invasive and serious bacterial infections in young febrile infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis Currently reading
- View MPLCT009- Progressive accumulation of hyperinflammatory NKG2Dlow NK cells in early childhood severe atopic dermatitis
Diagnostic test accuracy of procalcitonin and C-reactive protein for predicting invasive and serious bacterial infections in young febrile infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Source: Lancet Child and Adolescent Health
Date Originally Published: 14 March 2024
Type of article: Clinical Trial Watch
MedED Catalogue Reference: MGCW008
Category: Paediatrics & Neonates
Category Cross-reference: Infectious Diseases
Keywords: procalcitonin, diagnostic biomarker bacterial infection, C-reactive protein
This summary is intended to provide a snapshot of the original research. It is in no way a substitute for the original research article, nor is it intended to be a complete reflection of the original research.
Originally published in Lancet Child and Adolescent Health, 14 March 2024
Febrile infants under 90 days face higher risks of invasive bacterial infections. Clinical guidelines, mainly using procalcitonin, can identify low-risk infants for tailored management.
A meta-analysis of 14 studies (n=7755) comparing procalcitonin and C-reactive protein found procalcitonin more accurate for detecting invasive bacterial infections (p=0.016), with an optimal cutoff of 0.49 ng/mL. However, both had similar accuracy for serious bacterial infections.
Heterogeneity varied across studies, with different definitions of serious bacterial infection posing a challenge.
Disclaimer
This article is compiled from various resources researched and compiled by the contributor. It is in no way presented as an original work. Every effort has been made to attribute quotes and content correctly. Where possible, all information has been independently verified. The Medical Education Network bears no responsibility for any inaccuracies which may occur from the use of third-party sources. If you have any queries regarding this article contact us
Fact-checking Policy
The Medical Education Network makes every effort to review and fact-check the articles used as source material in our summaries and original material. We have strict guidelines in relation to the publications we use as our source data, favouring peer-reviewed research wherever possible. Every effort is made to ensure that the information contained here is an accurate reflection of the original material. Should you find inaccuracies, out of date content or have any additional issues with our articles, please make use of the contact us form to notify us.
