Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 738

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Procalcitonin as a diagnostic test for sepsis in critically ill adults and after surgery or trauma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Uzzan, Bernard, Cohen, Régis, Nicolas, Patrick, Cucherat, Michel, Perret, Gérard-Yves·2006·Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the accuracy of serum procalcitonin as a diagnostic test for sepsis, severe sepsis, or septic shock in adults in intensive care units or after surgery or trauma, alone and compared with C-reactive protein. To draw and compare the summary receiver operating characteristics curves for procalcitonin and C-reactive protein from the literature. DATA SOURCE: MEDLINE (keywords: procalcitonin, intensive care, sepsis, postoperative sepsis, trauma); screening of the literature. STUDY SELECTION: Meta-analysis of all 49 published studies in medical, surgical, or polyvalent intensive care units or postoperative wards. Children, medical patients, and immunocompromised patients were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION: Thirty-three studies fulfilled inclusion criteria (3,943 patients, 1,828 males, 922 females; mean age: 56.1 yrs; 1,825 patients with sepsis, severe sepsis, or septic shock; 1,545 with only systemic inflammatory response syndrome); eight studies could not be analyzed statistically. Global mortality rate was 29.3%. DATA SYNTHESIS: Global odds ratios for diagnosis of infection complicated by systemic inflammation were 15.7 for the 25 studies (2,966 patients) using procalcitonin (95% confidence interval, 9.1-27.1) and 5.4 for the 15 studies (1,322 patients) using C-reactive protein (95% confidence interval, 3.2-9.2). The summary receiver operating characteristics curve for procalcitonin was better than for C-reactive protein. In the 15 studies using both markers, the Q* value (intersection of summary receiver operating characteristics curve with the diagonal line where sensitivity equals specificity) was significantly higher for procalcitonin than for C-reactive protein (0.78 vs. 0.71, p = .02), the former test showing better accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: Procalcitonin represents a good biological diagnostic marker for sepsis, severe sepsis, or septic shock, difficult diagnoses in critically ill patients. Procalcitonin is superior to C-reactive protein. Procalcitonin should be included in diagnostic guidelines for sepsis and in clinical practice in intensive care units.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/01.ccm.0000226413.54364.36

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 738

Metadata

Authors
Uzzan, B., Cohen, R., Nicolas, P., Cucherat, M., & Perret, G.-Y.
Venue
Critical Care Medicine
Published
2006-07
Volume
34
Issue
7
Pages
1996-2003
ISSN
0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2152354908
Cited by
738
References
3
FWCI
5.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Procalcitonin as a diagnostic test for sepsis in critically ill adults and after surgery or trauma: A systematic review and meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.ccm.0000226413.54364.36
The paper
Uzzan, B., Cohen, R., Nicolas, P., Cucherat, M., & Perret, G.-Y. (2006). Procalcitonin as a diagnostic test for sepsis in critically ill adults and after surgery or trauma: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ccm.0000226413.54364.36

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.