Abstract
Objectives
Several studies have investigated the prognostic value of soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells-1 (sTREM-1) in patients with infection. However, the result was controversial. Thus, the purpose of the present meta-analysis was to determine the prognostic value of the sTREM-1 level in predicting mortality at the initial stage of infection.
Methods The literature was searched in the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Knowledge and Cochrane databases. A 2×2 contingency table was constructed on the basis of mortality and sTREM-1 levels in patients with infection. 2 authors independently judged study eligibility and extracted data. The prognostic value of sTREM-1 in predicting mortality was determined using a bivariate meta-analysis model. Q-test and I2 index were used to test heterogeneity.
Results 9 studies were selected from 803 studies. An elevated sTREM-1 level was associated with a higher risk of death in infection, with pooled risk ratio (RR) was 2.54 (95% CI 1.77 to 3.65) using a random-effects model (I2=53.8%). With the bivariate random-effects regression model, the pooled sensitivity and specificity of sTREM-1 to predict mortality in infection were 0.75 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.86) and 0.66 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.75), respectively. The diagnostic OR was 6 (95% CI 3 to 10). The overall area under the summary receiver operator characteristic (SROC) curve was 0.76 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.79). When we calculated the sepsis subgroup, the pooled RR was 2.98 (95% CI 2.19 to 4.40). The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.74 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.85) and 0.72 (95% CI 0.62 to 0.80), respectively. The overall area under the SROC curve was 0.78 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.81).
Conclusions Elevated sTREM-1 concentrations had a moderate prognostic significance in assessing the mortality of infection in adult patients. However, sTREM-1 alone is insufficient to predict mortality as a biomarker.
Citation: Longxiang Su, Dan Liu, Wenzhao Chai, Dawei Liu, Yun Long Role of sTREM-1 in predicting mortality of infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis BMJ Open 2016;6:e010314 doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010314
Received: 22 October 2015 Revised: 12 April 2016 Accepted: 14 April 2016 Published: 13 May 2016
Copyright: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Contributors LS, YL and DL conceived and designed the study. LS, DL and WC collected the data, performed the data extraction, conducted the quality assessment and analysed the data. LS and YL wrote the manuscript and also read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
