Author
Listed:
- Amit Kumar
- Era Karn
- Kiran Trivedi
- Pramod Kumar
- Ganesh Chauhan
- Aradhana Kumari
- Pragya Pant
- Murali Munisamy
- Jay Prakash
- Prattay Guha Sarkar
- Kameshwar Prasad
- Anupa Prasad
Abstract
Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 has emerged as a global pandemic causing millions of critical cases and deaths. Early identification of at-risk patients is crucial for planning triage and treatment strategies. Methods and findings: We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the pooled prognostic significance of procalcitonin in predicting mortality and severity in patients with COVID-19 using a robust methodology and clear clinical implications. Design: We used Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions guidelines. We included thirty-two prospective and retrospective cohort studies involving 13,154 patients. Results: The diagnostic odds ratio of procalcitonin for predicting mortality were estimated to be 11 (95% CI: 7 to 17) with sensitivity, specificity, and summary area under the curveof 0.83 (95% CI: 0.70 to 0.91), 0.69 (95% CI: 0.58 to 0.79), and 0.83 (95% CI: 0.79 to 0.86) respectively. While for identifying severe cases of COVID-19, the odds ratio was 8.0 (95% CI 5.0 to 12.0) with sensitivity, specificity, and summary area under the curve of 0.73 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.78), 0.74 (0.66 to 0.81), and 0.78 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.82) respectively. Conclusion: Procalcitonin has good discriminatory power for predicting mortality and disease severity in COVID-19 patients. Therefore, procalcitonin measurement may help identify potentially severe cases and thus decrease mortality by offering early aggressive treatment.
Suggested Citation
Amit Kumar & Era Karn & Kiran Trivedi & Pramod Kumar & Ganesh Chauhan & Aradhana Kumari & Pragya Pant & Murali Munisamy & Jay Prakash & Prattay Guha Sarkar & Kameshwar Prasad & Anupa Prasad, 2022.
"Procalcitonin as a predictive marker in COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(9), pages 1-22, September.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0272840
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0272840
Download full text from publisher
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:pone00:0272840. 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.