Mateos-Haro Miriam, Garcia-Santa-Vinuela Ana, Molano-Franco Daniel, Solà Ivan, Gordo-Vidal Federico, Martín-Delgado María Cruz, Lopez-Alcalde Jesus, Zamora Javier
Clinical Biostatistics Unit, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, IRYCIS, Madrid, Spain.
Clinical Medicine and Public Health Programme, Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain.
BMJ Open. 2025 Jul 6;15(7):e090922. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-090922.
A synthesis and appraisal of the recommendations for biomarkers in practice guidelines concerning sepsis is required to consolidate evidence-based practice. We generated an evidence gap map (EGM) on the use of biomarkers for managing adults with sepsis.
Scoping review.
MEDLINE, Guidelines International Network, Pan American Health Organization, Trip Database and UpToDate were searched from 2016 to March 2025.
Guidance documents (GD) that searched at least one literature source and provided clinical recommendations for the use of biomarkers for the management (diagnosis and prognosis, including treatment response) of adults with sepsis.
Two reviewers independently applied the eligibility criteria and extracted data. We used the AGREE-II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation) tool to assess the GD quality. GDs that scored ≥50% on the AGREE-II 'Rigour of development' domain were considered robust. We also applied the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system to evaluate if the recommendations were strong or conditional.
We found 10 GDs, with only half (4/8) having a robust methodology. There were 31 recommendations concerning biomarkers. Among these, 24 (77.4%) recommendations were about single biomarkers, with lactate (23; 74.2%) and procalcitonin (8; 25.8%) most frequently recommended. Biomarker testing focused on prognosis in 28 (90.3%) recommendations. Overall, 16 (51.6%) recommendations were graded strong and 13 (42.0%) were conditional, which we displayed in an EGM.
The methodology of GDs concerning adult sepsis was poor. Our review calls for more prudent use of biomarkers in specific prognostic scenarios and in combination with standard clinical assessments. Enhancing the methodological quality of future GDs is essential to generate more valid and robust recommendations for optimising patient care.
需要对脓毒症实践指南中生物标志物的建议进行综合和评估,以巩固循证实践。我们绘制了一份关于使用生物标志物管理成年脓毒症患者的证据缺口图(EGM)。
范围综述。
检索了2016年至2025年3月的MEDLINE、国际指南网络、泛美卫生组织、Trip数据库和UpToDate。
至少检索了一个文献来源并为使用生物标志物管理成年脓毒症患者(诊断和预后,包括治疗反应)提供临床建议的指导文件(GD)。
两名评审员独立应用纳入标准并提取数据。我们使用AGREE-II(研究与评估指南评估)工具评估GD质量。在AGREE-II“制定的严谨性”领域得分≥50%的GD被认为是可靠的。我们还应用GRADE(推荐评估、制定和评价分级)系统来评估这些建议是强烈的还是有条件的。
我们找到了10份GD,只有一半(4/8)的方法可靠。有31条关于生物标志物的建议。其中,24条(77.4%)建议是关于单一生物标志物的,最常被推荐的是乳酸(23条;74.2%)和降钙素原(8条;25.8%)。28条(90.3%)建议中的生物标志物检测侧重于预后。总体而言,16条(51.6%)建议被评为强烈推荐,13条(42.0%)为有条件推荐,我们将其展示在EGM中。
关于成人脓毒症的GD方法质量较差。我们的综述呼吁在特定的预后场景中更谨慎地使用生物标志物,并与标准临床评估相结合。提高未来GD的方法质量对于生成更有效和可靠的建议以优化患者护理至关重要。