4.4 Article

Lipopolysaccharide-binding protein: a potential marker of febrile urinary tract infection in childhood

期刊

PEDIATRIC NEPHROLOGY
卷 28, 期 7, 页码 1091-1097

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00467-013-2432-9

关键词

Urinary tract infection; Lipopolysaccharide-binding protein; Procalcitonin; Interleukin 6; C-reactive protein; Children; Erythrocyte sedimentation rate

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are encountered frequently in children, and their early diagnosis and treatment are important. This study evaluates the diagnostic value of serum concentrations of lipopolysaccharide-binding protein (LBP), an acute-phase protein, in children with febrile UTI and compares it to those of the total white blood cell count (WBC), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin (PCT), and interleukin-6 (IL-6). The study population comprised 77 consecutive patients with a first-episode febrile UTI (33 boys) with a median age of 11 months [interquartile range (IQR), 5.5-33 months], 21 healthy controls (11 boys) with a median age of 10 months (IQR, 5-20.5 months) and 58 febrile controls with a fever due to other causes (28 boys) with a median age of 12.5 months (IQR, 7-30 months). LBP, IL-6, PCT, and CRP were measured for both patients and control groups. The serum levels of LBP (p < 0.001), CRP (p < 0.001), PCT (p = 0.001), IL-6 (p = 0.002), ESR (p = 0.020), and WBC (p < 0.001) were higher in patients with febrile UTI than in the healthy and febrile control groups. The LPB cut-off value for best sensitivity and specificity in patients with febrile UTI was > 43.23 mg/l. Furthermore, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was significantly greater for LBP than for CRP (p = 0.014), PCT (p < 0.001), ESR (p < 0.001), WBC (p = 0.002) and IL-6 (p = 0.006). The results of this study suggest that the serum LBP concentration constitutes a reliable biologic marker for the diagnosis of a febrile UTI in children.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据