ObjectiveTo systematically review the diagnostic value of Presepsin for sepsis. MethodsWe searched databases including PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, WanFang, VIP and CNKI from inception to June 2015 to collect diagnostic tests related to Presepsin for spesis. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies by QUADAS-2 tool. Then, meta-analysis was performed by Stata 13.0 software. ResultsA total of 19 studies involving 4140 samples were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that:the pooled sensitivity (Sen) and specificity (Spe) were 0.85 (95%CI 0.79 to 0.90) and 0.83 (95%CI 0.76 to 0.87), respectively. The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve was 0.91 (95%CI 0.88 to 0.93). ConclusionPresepsin shows high diagnostic value for sepsis as a novel biomarker. Due to the limited quality of the included studies, more high quality studies are needed to verify the above conclusion.
Objective To systematically review the diagnostic value of Presepsin for sepsis. Methods Literatures were searched from PubMed, The Cochrane Library (Issue 6, 2017), EMbase, CNKI, CBM, VIP, and WanFang database, and the time was from inception to June 2017, to collect diagnostic studies about Presepsin for sepsis. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies by QUADAS-2 tool. Then meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.3 and Meta-Disc 1.4 software. Pooled sensitivity (Sen), specificity (Spe), positive likelihood ratio (LR+), negative likelihood ratio (LR-), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the curve (AUC) of summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) were calculated to assess the diagnostic value of individual diagnostic tests. Results A total of 23 studies with 2 925 sepsis patients and 1 852 controls were finally included. The results of meta-analysis showed that the pooled Sen, Spe, LR+, LR-, DOR, and AUC was 0.80 ［95% CI was (0.78, 0.81), P<0.000 1］, 0.83 ［95%CI was (0.81, 0. 84), P<0.000 1］, 4.78 ［95%CI was (3.62, 6.31), P<0.000 1］, 0.22 ［95%CI was (0.18, 0.27), P<0.000 1］, 23.64 ［95%CI was (16.00, 34.92), P<0.000 1］, and 0.91 ［95%CI was (0.89, 0.94), P<0.001］, respectively. Subgroup analysis showed that the pooled Sen, Spe, LR+, LR-, DOR, and AUC in Caucasian was 0.83 ［95% CI was (0.80, 0.86), P=0.000 1］, 0.79 ［95% CI was (0.76, 0.82), P<0.000 1］, 4.38 ［95%CI was (2.40, 8.02), P<0.000 1］, 0.23 ［95%CI was (0.16, 0.31), P=0.007 8］, 21.09 ［95% CI was (8.82, 50.41), P<0.000 1］, and 0.91 ［95%CI was (0.87, 0.92), P<0.001］ respectively, and in Asian was 0.79 ［95% CI was (0.77, 0.80), P<0.000 1］, 0.85 ［95%CI was (0.83, 0.87), P<0.000 1］,4.74 ［95%CI was (3.82, 5.89), P=0.011 1］, 0.22 ［95% CI was (0.17, 0.28), P<0.000 1］, 24.95 ［95%CI was (16.07, 38.74), P<0.000 1］, and 0.92 ［95%CI was (0.90, 0.95), P=0.001］ respectively, there was no significant difference between Caucasian and Asian in diagnostic accuracy of Presepsin (Z=0.41, P>0.05). Conclusion Current evidence indicates that Presepsin has great early diagnostic value for sepsis.