Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39061959›Full record

ArticleBiomedicines2024

Circulating Nucleosomes as a Novel Biomarker for Sepsis: A Scoping Review.

Fuhong Su, Anthony Moreau, Marzia Savi, Michele Salvagno, Filippo Annoni, Lina Zhao, Keliang Xie, Jean-Louis Vincent, Fabio Silvio Taccone

Registry-linked trialAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Biomedicines, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07184593 (Validation of a Point-of-care Device for Rapid Bedside Measurement of Circulating Nucleosome Levels in Critically Ill Patients and Study of Its Relevance to Prognostication), which is not on this map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT07184593 not yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Validation of a Point-of-care Device for Rapid Bedside Measurement of Circulating Nucleosome Levels in Critically Ill Patients and Study of Its Relevance to Prognostication

TypeobservationalSponsorErasme University HospitalRan2025 to 2027Enrolled130ConditionsSepsis, Septic Shock, Cardiac Arrest (CA), Pancreatitis
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Observational
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Fuhong SuLaboratoire de Recherche Experimentale des Soins Intensifs, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles (HUB), Université Libre de Bruxelles, 1070 Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-4962-7907
Anthony MoreauLaboratoire de Recherche Experimentale des Soins Intensifs, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles (HUB), Université Libre de Bruxelles, 1070 Brussels, Belgium.
Marzia SaviDepartment of Intensive Care, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles (HUB), Université Libre de Bruxelles, 1070 Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-7235-6215
Michele SalvagnoDepartment of Intensive Care, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles (HUB), Université Libre de Bruxelles, 1070 Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-8415-4247
Filippo AnnoniLaboratoire de Recherche Experimentale des Soins Intensifs, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles (HUB), Université Libre de Bruxelles, 1070 Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-1271-9034
Lina ZhaoDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, Tianjin 300052, China.
Keliang XieDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, Tianjin 300052, China.ORCID 0000-0003-0919-9768
Jean-Louis VincentLaboratoire de Recherche Experimentale des Soins Intensifs, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles (HUB), Université Libre de Bruxelles, 1070 Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-6011-6951
Fabio Silvio TacconeLaboratoire de Recherche Experimentale des Soins Intensifs, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles (HUB), Université Libre de Bruxelles, 1070 Brussels, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Circulating nucleosome levels are commonly elevated in physiological and pathological conditions. Their potential as biomarkers for diagnosing and prognosticating sepsis remains uncertain due, in part, to technical limitations in existing detection methods. This scoping review explores the possible role of nucleosome concentrations in the diagnosis, prognosis, and therapeutic management of sepsis. A comprehensive literature search of the Cochrane and Medline libraries from 1996 to 1 February 2024 identified 110 potentially eligible studies, of which 19 met the inclusion criteria, encompassing a total of 39 SIRS patients, 893 sepsis patients, 280 septic shock patients, 117 other ICU control patients, and 345 healthy volunteers. The enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay [ELISA] was the primary method of nucleosome measurement. Studies consistently reported significant correlations between nucleosome levels and other NET biomarkers. Nucleosome levels were higher in patients with sepsis than in healthy volunteers and associated with disease severity, as indicated by SOFA and APACHE II scores. Non-survivors had higher nucleosome levels than survivors. Circulating nucleosome levels, therefore, show promise as early markers of NETosis in sepsis, with moderate diagnostic accuracy and strong correlations with disease severity and prognosis. However, the available evidence is drawn mainly from single-center, observational studies with small sample sizes and varied detection methods, warranting further investigation.

Indexed as

infectionNETosisnucleosomeprognosissepsissepsis diagnosis

Identifiers

PMID39061959
PMCPMC11273886

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.