• Shan Li, Xiamei Huang, Zhiping Chen, Huizhi Zhong, Qiliu Peng, Yan Deng, Xue Qin, and Jinmin Zhao.
• Department of Clinical Laboratory, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning 530021, Guangxi, People's Republic of China.
• Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2013 Jan 1;17(1):e12-23.

BackgroundNeutrophil CD64 expression is widely reported as an efficacious biomarker to differentiate infected patients from other non-infected patients. This meta-analysis was conducted to comprehensively and quantitatively summarize the accuracy of neutrophil CD64 in the early diagnosis of bacterial infection.MethodsA systematic review of related studies was conducted, and the sensitivity, specificity, and other data about the accuracy of CD64 expression on neutrophils were pooled using random effects models with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as the effect measurements. Summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves and the Q* value were also calculated in the meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was tested, as well as the publication bias. Potential sources of heterogeneity were explored by assessing whether or not certain covariates significantly influenced the summary diagnostic odds ratio (SDOR).ResultsA total of 26 studies including 3944 patients met the inclusion criteria for the final analysis. The summary estimate was 0.76 (95% CI 0.74-0.78) for sensitivity and 0.85 (95% CI 0.83-0.86) for specificity. The positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), SDOR, and area under the SROC of neutrophil CD64 expression with Q* value were 6.67 (95% CI 4.67-9.53), 0.24 (95% CI 0.18-0.31), 34.29 (95% CI 19.59-60.01), and 0.92 (Q*=0.85), respectively. The pooled data from the included studies had high heterogeneity and the Egger test suggested a publication bias.ConclusionsOn the basis of our meta-analysis, neutrophil CD64 expression could be a promising and meaningful biomarker for diagnosing bacterial infection. Nevertheless, more large prospective studies should be carried out before the neutrophil CD64 test is used widely in the clinical setting because of the various cut-off values.Copyright © 2012 International Society for Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

13 keywords...

hide…