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

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

PLOS ONE, 2016, vol. 11, issue 4, 1-13

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.

Date: 2016
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0153188 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 53188&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0153188

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0153188

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone (plosone@plos.org).