Title: Meta-analysis of procalcitonin for sepsis detection – Authors' reply
Abstract: We thank the comments from Beat Müller and colleagues, Jens Ulrik Jensen and colleagues, and Konrad Reinhart and Frank Brunkhorst. Meta-analysis of procalcitonin for sepsis detectionIn a meta-analysis on the accuracy of an insensitive procalcitonin assay, Benjamin Tang and colleagues found that the assay failed to differentiate sepsis from other non-infectious causes of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) in critically ill patients.1 Based on our experience,2–8 we believe this meta-analysis deserves several comments, clarifications, and corrections. Full-Text PDF Meta-analysis of procalcitonin for sepsis detectionWe read with great interest Benjamin Tang and colleagues' meta-analysis regarding the accuracy of biomarker procalcitonin for sepsis diagnosis.1 Tang and colleagues argued that they did not include investigations that estimated the accuracy of procalcitonin towards the clinical condition septic shock “since these conditions were usually recognised by simple clinical criteria”. This statement is correct, but ironically it also applies to the condition Tang and colleagues mainly investigate in the meta-analysis—namely sepsis. Full-Text PDF Meta-analysis of procalcitonin for sepsis detectionThe meta-analysis by Benjamin Tang and colleagues1 requires some comment. The authors found a “low diagnostic performance” of procalcitonin and concluded that “procalcitonin cannot reliably differentiate sepsis from other, non-infectious causes of systemic inflammatory response syndrome” (SIRS) and that “the widespread use of the procalcitonin test for sepsis diagnosis in critical care settings” is not supported by their findings. Full-Text PDF
Publication Year: 2007
Publication Date: 2007-07-21
Language: en
Type: article
Indexed In: ['crossref']
Access and Citation
Cited By Count: 1
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot