Cited by 84Sepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentInflammation biomarkers and pathwaysAcute Kidney Injury Research

Evaluation of lactate, white blood cell count, neutrophil count, procalcitonin and immature granulocyte count as biomarkers for sepsis in emergency department patients

Karon, Brad S., Tolan, Nicole V., Wockenfus, Amy M., Block, Darci R., Baumann, Nikola A., Bryant, Sandra C., Clements, Casey M.·2017·Clinical Biochemistry

Abstract

Background Lactate, white blood cell (WBC) and neutrophil count, procalcitonin and immature granulocyte (IG) count were compared for the prediction of sepsis, and severe sepsis or septic shock, in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED).Methods We prospectively enrolled 501 ED patients with a sepsis panel ordered for suspicion of sepsis. WBC, neutrophil, and IG counts were measured on a Sysmex XT-2000i analyzer. Lactate was measured by i-STAT, and procalcitonin by Brahms Kryptor. We classified patients as having sepsis using a simplification of the 1992 consensus conference sepsis definitions. Patients with sepsis were further classified as having severe sepsis or septic shock using established criteria. Univariate receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to determine odds ratio (OR), area under the ROC curve (AUC), and sensitivity/specificity at optimal cut-off for prediction of sepsis (vs. no sepsis), and prediction of severe sepsis or septic shock (vs. no sepsis).Results There were 267 patients without sepsis; and 234 with sepsis, including 35 patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. Lactate had the highest OR (1.44, 95th% CI 1.20-1.73) for the prediction of sepsis; while WBC, neutrophil count and percent (neutrophil/WBC) had OR>1.00 (p<0.05). All biomarkers had AUC<0.70 and sensitivity and specificity <70% at the optimal cut-off. Initial lactate was the best biomarker for predicting severe sepsis or septic shock, with an odds ratio (95th% CI) of 2.70 (2.02-3.61) and AUC 0.89 (0.82-0.96).Conclusion Traditional biomarkers (lactate, WBC, neutrophil count, procalcitonin, IG) have limited utility in the prediction of sepsis.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2017.05.014

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Karon, B. S., Tolan, N. V., Wockenfus, A. M., Block, D. R., Baumann, N. A., Bryant, S. C., & Clements, C. M.
Affiliations
Mayo Clinic (US)
Corresponding author
Karon, Brad S.
Venue
Clinical Biochemistry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-11
Volume
50
Issue
16-17
Pages
956-958
ISSN
0009-9120 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2620340731
Cited by
84
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1
FWCI
5.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Biochemistry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Sysmex America (FP00069027)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Inflammation biomarkers and pathways
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Nephrology › Acute Kidney Injury Research
Keywords
sepsis, septic shock, severe sepsis, lactate, procalcitonin, white blood cell count, neutrophil count, biomarkers, sepsis prediction, emergency department patients
MeSH terms
Calcitonin, Emergency Service, Hospital, Humans, Leukocyte Count, Sensitivity and Specificity, Biomarkers, Odds Ratio, Sepsis, Lactic Acid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review