IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0153188.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Diagnostic Accuracy of Lipopolysaccharide-Binding Protein as Biomarker for Sepsis in Adult Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Kuan-Fu Chen
  • Chung-Hsien Chaou
  • Jing-Yi Jiang
  • Hsueh-Wen Yu
  • Yu-Hsiang Meng
  • Wei-Chen Tang
  • Chin-Chieh Wu

Abstract

Introduction: Lipopolysaccharide-binding protein (LBP) is widely reported as a biomarker to differentiate infected from non-infected patients. The diagnostic use of LBP for sepsis remains a matter of debate. We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the diagnostic accuracy of serum LBP for sepsis in adult patients. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the accuracy of LBP for sepsis diagnosis. A systematic search in PubMed and EMBASE for studies that evaluated the diagnostic role of LBP for sepsis through December 2015 was conducted. We searched these databases for original, English language, research articles that studied the diagnostic accuracy between septic and non-septic adult patients. Sensitivity, specificity, and other measures of accuracy, such as diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of LBP were pooled using the Hierarchical Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic (HSROC) method. Results: Our search returned 53 reports, of which 8 fulfilled the inclusion criteria, accounting for 1684 patients. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of LBP for diagnosis of sepsis by the HSROC method were 0.64 (95% CI: 0.56–0.72) and 0.63 (95% CI: 0.53–0.73), respectively. The value of the DOR was 3.0 (95% CI: 2.0–4.0) and the AUC was 0.68 (95% CI: 0.64–0.72). Meta-regression analysis revealed that cut-off values accounted for the heterogeneity of sensitivity and sample size (> = 150) accounted for the heterogeneity of specificity. Conclusions: Based on the results of our meta-analysis, LBP had weak sensitivity and specificity in the detection of sepsis. LBP may not be practically recommended for clinical utilization as a single biomarker.

Suggested Citation

  • Kuan-Fu Chen & Chung-Hsien Chaou & Jing-Yi Jiang & Hsueh-Wen Yu & Yu-Hsiang Meng & Wei-Chen Tang & Chin-Chieh Wu, 2016. "Diagnostic Accuracy of Lipopolysaccharide-Binding Protein as Biomarker for Sepsis in Adult Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-13, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0153188
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0153188
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0153188
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0153188&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0153188?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Deborah A. Hall & Robin M. Voigt & Thaisa M. Cantu-Jungles & Bruce Hamaker & Phillip A. Engen & Maliha Shaikh & Shohreh Raeisi & Stefan J. Green & Ankur Naqib & Christopher B. Forsyth & Tingting Chen , 2023. "An open label, non-randomized study assessing a prebiotic fiber intervention in a small cohort of Parkinson’s disease participants," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-14, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0153188. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.