Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2025 Jan 16;20(1):e0316987. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0316987

The diagnostic accuracy of umbilical cord procalcitonin in predicting early-onset neonatal infection

Thi Thanh Binh Nguyen 1,2,*, Diep Anh Truong Thi 1, Quang Vinh Truong 3, Thi Ny Pham 4
Editor: Benjamin M Liu5
PMCID: PMC11737792  PMID: 39821188

Abstract

Introduction

To determine the threshold of umbilical cord blood procalcitonin for early-onset neonatal infection diagnosis.

Method

This prospective study was conducted on 126 neonates in the neonatal care unit of Hue University of Medicine and Pharmacy Hospital, Vietnam, from June 01, 2023 to August 31, 2024. All neonates showed signs at birth or risk factors for early-onset infection (EOI) and were divided into two groups: EOI group and non-EOI group. Umbilical cord blood samples were collected for procalcitonin analysis immediately after birth.

Results

The median procalcitonin (PCT) levels in umbilical cord blood were significantly higher in the EOI group (0.154 ng/ml [0.092–0.197]) compared to the non-EOI group (0.097 ng/ml [0.082–0.134]; p < 0.001). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve determined the optimal threshold value of PCT of 0.142 ng/ml with an AUC 0.751 (95% CI: 0.661–0.841, p<0.001) in the total population. At this cut-off, the Se, Sp, PPV, and NPV were 68.2%, 76.8%, 61.2%, and 81.8%, respectively. The optimal cut-off value for preterm neonates was 0.122 ng/ml (AUC: 0.785, 95% CI: 0.658–0.911, p<0.001) corresponding a Se of 79.2%, Sp of 74.1%, PPV of 73.1%, and NPV of 80.0%. In term group, the optimal cut-off value was 0.150 ng/ml (AUC: 0.726, 95% CI: 0.583–0.860, p<0.01), with a Se of 60.0%, Sp of 80.4%, PPV of 52.2%, and NPV of 84.9%.

Conclusions

Umbilical cord blood PCT concentration were elevated in neonates with EOI. PCT could be a valuable marker for the early diagnosis of EOI.

Introduction

Early-onset infection (EOI) is a serious and often fatal condition that afflicts neonates within the first three days of life. EOI progresses rapidly and requires immediate treatment prevent mortality [1]. Early diagnosis is essential for optimizing treatment outcomes [24]. In current practice, clinicians often initiate early empiric antibiotics in neonates with clinical symptoms or risk factors before obtaining evidence of infection and inflammatory markers [1]. Consequently, a large number of neonates are overdiagnosed and treated with antibiotics, leading to increased rates of drug-resistant bacteria, separation of mother and child, and increased treatment costs. Therefore, a new marker with high sensitivity and specificity, reliable for early diagnosis of EOI, and with quick results to rule out infection and avoid unnecessary antibiotic treatment is needed [2]. With the current trend, to minimize pain and blood loss for newborns, and to get results more quickly, researchers are increasingly exploring and implementing the use of umbilical cord blood as an alternative source to venous blood sampling in neonates [5, 6]. Previous studies have shown that, PCT is an early inflammatory marker with high specificity in response to severe systemic infections. It can be used for early detection, assessment of severity, and prognosis of the diseases [7, 8]. Some studies have shown that umbilical cord blood procalcitonin (PCT) concentration is a more effective marker than C-reactive protein (CRP) or white blood cells (WBCs) in identifying infections. PCT often increases early in newborns with infections [9, 10], even before they develop clear clinical symptoms. Although PCT is highly specific for infection, to avoid interference from physiological increases in PCT values after birth, it is necessary to evaluate PCT concentrations in umbilical cord blood. While there have been studies on this issue [1012], no consensus exists on the role of umbilical cord blood procalcitonin. EOI is an infection transmitted through the maternal-fetal route (possibly through the placenta or upstream). Therefore, we hypothesize that if the newborn is exposed to the source of infection in the fetus before birth, the umbilical cord blood PCT concentration will be different, increased in neonates with EOI, and could serve as an early marker and distinguisher of EOI.

Objective

To determine the threshold of umbilical cord blood procalcitonin for early-onset neonatal infection diagnosis.

Subject and method

Study design

This prospective study was conducted at the Hue University of Medicine and Pharmacy Hospital, Hue City, Vietnam, from June 01, 2023 to August 31, 2024.

Subjects

Inclusion criteria

All neonates exhibited signs at birth or risk factors for early-onset infection (EOI) and measured PCT in umbilical cord blood immediately after birth. All neonates were monitored for at least the first 72 hours after birth.

Exclusion criteria

The family did not consent to participate in the study. The neonates were transferred to the other hospital within the first 72 hours after birth.

A total of 126 neonates was included in the final analysis.

Variables and data collection

Data collection: Risk factors for EOI were assessed based on NICE 2021 guideline [13] (prolonged time of rupture of membranes, maternal fever, spontaneous preterm birth before 37 weeks of gestation, mother with chorioamnionitis, maternal streptococcus group B infection…) were collected before birth. During study period, we followed nearly 2765 newborns born in our hospital, assessing all risk factors for EOI in each pregnancy and monitoring early-onset infections. From this cohort, we obtained a final sample size of 126 cases, including 44 cases of EOI. Information about the newborns including gestational age, gender, birth weight, type of delivery and nutritional status were collected immediately after birth. Neonates were followed up for the first 72 hours to check clinical manifestations and evaluate EOI. Neonates who did not have clinical symptoms of infection did not admitted to neonatal care unit and clinically examined daily. Neonates with signs of suspected EOI (altered temperature, abnormal consciousness, seizures, shock, breath difficulty, apnea, vomiting, poor feeding, abdominal distention, abnornal heart rate, cyanosis, jaundice in the first 24 hours after birth, unexplained bleeding…) admitted to the neonatal unit, and screened for infection including blood cultures and count blood cells (WBC, Hb, PLT),blood glucose before use antibiotic (if indicated). The C-reactive protein (CRP) test is performed after 6 hours after birth. Blood count and CRP can be repeated after 24 hours.

Umbilical cord blood samples are collected immediately after birth. As soon as the newborn’s umbilical cord was delayed clamping (except in cases need immediate resuscitation) and cut. Clean the umbilical cord area, take 2 ml of umbilical blood with a sterile syringe and put it in a sterile test tube containing lithium heparin anticoagulant and transfer it to the laboratory immediately afterwards. Quantitative cord blood procalcitonin level was performed by Cobas 6000/8000 analyzer, Roche Diagnostics, Japan. at the Laboratory Department, University of Medicine and Pharmacy Hospital, Hue University.

Patient classification

All newborns in this study were followed up for at least 72 hours after birth in the Obstetrics department and in the neonatal unit (if admitted) to assess for EOI. Based on clinical and paraclinical characteristics, neonates were categorized into two groups: EOI group and non-EOI group. Non-EOI group comprised: (1) asymptomatic neonates who were not hospitalized and (2) neonates with suspected infection who were hospitalized but improved without antibiotics or were discontinued antibiotics within 48 hours. In the latter case, improvement was confirmed by resolution of initial symptoms, absence of new signs of infection and negative blood culture and CRP test.

EOI Group: Neonates with clinical and laboratory evidence of infection were treated with antibiotics for a minimum of 7–10 days, following NICE 2021 guidelines [13]. Cord blood procalcitonin levels were not considered a diagnostic criteria for infection.

Statistical analysis

The statistical analysis was done using SPSS version 20.0. The characteristics of the study population was analysed by percentages for quantitive variables and median for quantitive variables. The Chi-square test was used to compare variables between EOI and non-EOI group. The ROC curve was performed to detemine the threhold of PCT value for predicting EOI and its sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). P-values of less than 0.05 was considered statistical significant.

Ethical statements

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Hue University, Hue City, Vietnam (No. H2023/195, dated May 24, 2023). Parents of neonates agreed to voluntary participation and the written informed consent (about study and used data in medical records) was obtained before enrollment.

Results

A total of 126 neonates were included in this study. Of these, 44 were diagnosed with EOI and 82 neonates were non-EOI. The basic characteristics of study population and risk factors of EOI were presnted in Table 1. The EOI group demonstrated a significantly higher incidence of prematurity and low birth weight neonates compared to the non-EOI group (p<0.05). However, no statistically significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of gender, mode of birth, or nutritional status (p>0.05). However, the EOI group had a significantly lower average weight (2527.27±715.08 gram) and gestational age (35.82±3.05 weeks) compared to the non-EOI group (37.55±2.33 g and 37.9±2.4 weeks, respectively; p<0.05). Risk factors of infection included preterm birth before 37 weeks (40.5%), prolonged rupture of membranes (28.6%), and maternal fever (22.2%). The median cord blood PCT concentration was significantly higher in the EOI group 0.154 ng/ml (0.092–0.197) compared to the non-EOI group (0.097 ng/ml (0.082–0.134); p<0.001).

Table 1. Baseline characteristics of of the study group.

Characteristics EOI group N = 44 [n (%)] Non-EOI group N = 82 [n (%)] p- value
Gender Male 23 (52.3) 46 (56.1) 0.681
Female 21 (47.7) 36 (43.9)
Gestational age (weeks) <37 24 (54.5) 27 (32.9) 0.018
≥ 37 20 (45.5) 56 (67.1)
Mean ± SD 35.82±3.05 37.55±2.33 0.002
Birth weight (grams) <2500 20 (45.5) 20 (24.4) 0.015
2500–<4000 24 (54.5) 61 (74.4)
≥4000 0 (0.0) 1 (1.2)
Mean ± SD (g) 2527.27±715.08 2891.46±55582 0.004
Nutritional status SGA 2 (4.5) 8 (9.8) 0.471
AGA 42 (95.5) 72 (87.8)
LGA 0 (0.0) 2 (2.1)
Types of delivery Vaginal 22 (50.0) 40 (48.8) 1.000
Caesarean section 22 (50.0) 42 (51.2)
Risk factors of EOI Suspected or confirmed infection in another baby in the case of a multiple pregnancy 1 (2.3) 0 (0.0) 0.349
Pre-term birth following spontaneous labour before 37 weeks’ gestation. 24 (54.5) 27 (32.9) 0.018
Confirmed rupture of membranes for more than 18 hours before a pre-term birth 11 (25.0) 8 (9.8) 0.023
Confirmed prelabour rupture of membranes at term for more than 24 hours before the
onset of labour
3 (6.8) 15(18.3) 0.079
Intrapartum fever higher than 38°C if there is suspected or confirmed bacterial infection 14 (31.8) 15 (18.3) 0.086
Clinical diagnosis of chorioamnionitis 0 (0.0) 1 (1.2) 1.000
Spontaneous rupture of membranes between 12–18 hours prior to delivery 4 (9.1) 10 (12.2) 0.769
PCT value (ng/ml) in total population Median 0.154 0.097 <0.001
(25th- 75th) (0.092–0.197) (0.082–0.134)
PCT value (ng/ml) in preterm group Median 0.162 0.101 <0.01
(25th- 75th) (0.133–0.197) (0.084–0.139)
PCT value (ng/ml) in term group Median 0.157 0.096 <0.01
(25th- 75th) (0.099–0.377) (0.079–0.133)

SGA, Small for gestational age; AGA, Appropriate for gestational age; LGA, Large for gestational age; EOI: Early-onset infection.

The ROC curve determined the optimal threshold value of PCT of 0.142 ng/ml with an AUC 0.751 (95% CI: 0.661–0.841, p<0.001) in the total population (Fig 1). At this cut-off, the Se, Sp, PPV, and NPV were 68.2%, 76.8%, 61.2%, and 81.8%, respectively. This result demostrated a good diagnosis accuracy of umbilical cord PCT for EOI.

Fig 1. ROC curve analysis of PCT for predicting early-onset neonatal infection in the total study population.

Fig 1

ROC, receiver operating characteristic; AUC, area under the curve; Se, Sensitivity; Sp, Specificity; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value; CI, Confidence Interval. **, p<0.001.

We also performed a seperate analysis the ability to identify EOI for PCT in preterm and term group to minimize the involvement of gestational age in PCT concentration (Fig 2). In the preterm group, ROC analysis showed PCT presented a good performance in identifing EOI. The optimal cut-off value for preterm neonates was 0.122 ng/ml (AUC: 0.785, 95% CI: 0.658–0.911, p<0.001) corresponding a Se of 79.2%, Sp of 74.1%, PPV of 73.1%, and NPV of 80.0%. In term group, the optimal cut-off value was 0.150 ng/ml (AUC: 0.726, 95% CI: 0.583–0.860, p<0.01), with a Se of 60.0%, Sp of 80.4%, PPV of 52.2%, and NPV of 84.9%.

Fig 2.

Fig 2

ROC curve analysis of PCT for predicting early-onset neonatal infection in preterm (A) and term group (B). ROC, receiver operating characteristic; AUC, area under the curve; Se, Sensitivity; Sp, Specificity; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value; CI, Confidence Interval. **, p<0.001.

Discussion

EOI in newborns is an infection with an origin in the mother. Pathogens are transmitted from mother to child in utero or during labor. Therefore, exposure to pathogens trigger an inflammatory response in the fetus, increasing levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines like interleukin-6, interleukin-10 [1416]. These cytokines, along with interleukin-1β, Tumor Necrosis Factor-α, and endotoxins, stimulate PCT production in the fetus [17]. A previous study demonstrated that maternal PCT levels during birth were not predictive of neonatal infection [18] while umbilical cord blood PCT concentrations have been shown to correlate with infectious intrauterine [18, 19], suggesting its potential as a promising diagnosis biomarker for EOI.

In agreement with previous studies, our result showed that not all newborns with infection risk factors develop EOI. Therefore, it is possible that umbilical cord PCT could significantly support the early diagnosis of infection and minimize unnecessary empiric antibiotic use in cases suspected of EOI in NICUs. Additionally, Meena et al. reported that umbilical cord blood PCT was a good biomarker for identifying proven sepsis that showed better sensitivity and specificity values in comparison to peripheral blood PCT [20].

Our findings revealed that there was a statistically significant difference in cord blood PCT levels between the EOI and non-EOI groups, with the EOI group presenting significantly higher median PCT levels in total population and in each term or preterm neonates. The result on increased umbilical cord blood PCT concentrations in infected neonates compared to non-infected neonates was also reported in previous studies, such as the studies by Dongen O.R.E. et al. (2021) [10], Joram et al. (2011) [11], and Kordek et al. (2006) [18]. In our study, a PCT value of 0.142 was determined as the optimal cut-off for predicting EOI in the total population, with a Se of 68.2%, Sp of 76.8%, PPV of 61.2%, and NPV of 81.8%. We found different diagnostic value of umbilical cord PCT based on sensitivity and specificity, PPV, NPV among previous studies [7, 11] and it remains unconclusive an optimal cutoff point to diagnosis EOI. For example, Joram et al. found that a cord blood PCT cut-off of 0.6 ng/ml had an AUC of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.95–0.98) for early EOI diagnosis in neonates (36.9 ± 3.8 weeks gestational age, 2783 ± 843.8 grams) with Se, Sp, NPV, and PPV values of 92.0%, 97.0%, 28.0%, and 99.0%, respectively [11]. Similarly, Kordek et al. (2006) reported a Se of 0.80 and an NPV of 0.95 for a cord blood PCT cut-off of 1.22 ng/ml [18]. Uyen’s study determined that 0.23 ng/ml was the optimal cord blood PCT cut-off with an AUC of 0.87, following Se, Sp, PPV, NPV of 59.1%, 98.7%, 86.2%, and 94%, respectively [21]. Although there were differences in cut-off points among studies, these findings consist of the potential of umbilical cord PCT as a reliable biomarker for early assessment of neonatal infections.

Although the proportion of EOI has decreased markedly in recent years, a more appropriate diagnostic approach has been challenged to minimizing empiric antibiotics for newborns with risk factors or suspected symptoms after birth. It is given that antibiotics can interfere with the development of the normal gut microbiota and increasing the opportunity of pathogenic bacterial colonization, and consequently affecting metabolism and immunity, especially in preterm newborns. In preterm neonates, who are at risk of infection, and often present with clinical signs that can be confused with normal characteristics due to gestational age or EOI, such as respiratory distress and poor feeding. Therefore, a separate analysis of PCT values considering gestational age, especially in preterm neonates is essential to identify infected cases. Our study identified a PCT cut-off of 0.122 ng/ml for preterm group and 0.150 ng/ml for term group to diagnose EOI. Previous studies have reported a wide range of PCT cut-off values. For extremely preterm infants, Frerot et al. found that a PCT concentration >0.5 ng/mL was associated with a higher risk of EOS (OR 2.18; 95% CI 1.58–3.02; p < 0.0001) and the optimal cut-off was determined to be 0.7 ng/mL, with an AUC of 0.75 (Se 69%, Sp 70%) [22]. Joram at al reported an optimal cut-off of 0.6 ng/ml for both preterm and term group [11]. On the other hand, Dongen et al. revealed a lower cut-off of 0.1 ng/ml for neonates ≥ 32 weeks GA, with a Se of 83% and Sp of 62%. However, there could improve Sp to 95% but reduced Se to 50% at the cut-off of 0.6 ng/ml in the same study [10].

Although cord blood procalcitonin (PCT) has been investigated as a biomarker for early-onset infection (EOI), its diagnostic performance is not yet optimal. However, regarding inflammatory markers in cord blood, Su et al. reported that PCT can be a reliable marker to confirm or exclude EOI [19], Huetz et al. (2020) [2] and Hue‐Bigé et al [23] demonstrated that PCT potentially guiding antibiotic therapy in neonates with risk factors or suspected clinical signs of infection. By applying a threhold of 0.6ng/ml or higher of umbilical cord blood PCT in algorithm to decide antibiotic prescription for EOI, Huetz et al. found that there was significantly reduction in antibiotic exposure in non-infected neonates by 39% [2].

Our study remains several limitations. Firstly, this was as a single hospital prospective study with a relatively sample size, therefore the result analysis is certain limited. However, as a hosptal with coordination between obstetrics and pediatrics in practicing, we obtained the neonatal information and had close monitoring. Secondly, the lack of proven infection (cases based on positive blood cultures), all cases in EOI group were classified as probable sepsis. Therefore, further prospective studies with expanded study population is nescessary to obtain more evidence for recommendations about umbilical cord PCT.

Conclusions

Umbilical cord PCT concentration can be an early diagnostic and differential marker of early neonatal sepsis.

Supporting information

S1 Data set

(CSV)

pone.0316987.s001.csv (5.8KB, csv)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by research funds from Hue University (DHH 2023 – 04–202).The founders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Simonsen KA, Anderson-Berry AL, Delair SF, Davies HD. Early-onset neonatal sepsis. Clinical microbiology reviews. 2014;27(1):21–47. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00031-13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Huetz N, Launay E, Gascoin G, Leboucher B, Savagner C, Muller JB, et al. Potential impact of umbilical-cord-blood procalcitonin-based algorithm on antibiotics exposure in neonates with suspected early-onset sepsis. Frontiers in pediatrics. 2020;8:127. doi: 10.3389/fped.2020.00127 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Liu BM. Epidemiological and clinical overview of the 2024 Oropouche virus disease outbreaks, an emerging/re-emerging neurotropic arboviral disease and global public health threat. J Med Virol. 2024;96(9):e29897. doi: 10.1002/jmv.29897 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Liu BM, Mulkey SB, Campos JM, DeBiasi RL. Laboratory diagnosis of CNS infections in children due to emerging and re-emerging neurotropic viruses. Pediatr Res. 2024;95(2):543–50. doi: 10.1038/s41390-023-02930-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Rotshenker-Olshinka K, Shinwell ES, Juster-Reicher A, Rosin I, Flidel-Rimon O. Comparison of hematologic indices and markers of infection in umbilical cord and neonatal blood. The Journal of Maternal-Fetal Neonatal Medicine. 2014;27(6):625–8. doi: 10.3109/14767058.2013.825597 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Carroll PD, Christensen RD. New and underutilized uses of umbilical cord blood in neonatal care. Maternal health, neonatology perinatology. 2015;1:1–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Abdollahi A, Shoar S, Nayyeri F, Shariat M. Diagnostic Value of Simultaneous Measurement of Procalcitonin, Interleukin-6 and hs-CRP in Prediction of Early-Onset Neonatal Sepsis. Mediterr J Hematol Infect Dis. 2012;4(1):e2012028. doi: 10.4084/MJHID.2012.028 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Liu BM, Hill HR. Role of Host Immune and Inflammatory Responses in COVID-19 Cases with Underlying Primary Immunodeficiency: A Review. J Interferon Cytokine Res. 2020;40(12):549–54. doi: 10.1089/jir.2020.0210 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.El-Amin Abdalla EO, Salih FA, Salih HF, Elamin OE, Gamaleldin MA, Mustafa BM. Procalcitonin in the diagnosis of early-onset neonatal infection in resource-limited settings. Cogent Medicine. 2017;4(1):1283085. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Dongen O, van Leeuwen L, de Groot P, Vollebregt K, Schiering I, Wevers B, et al. Umbilical cord procalcitonin to detect early-onset sepsis in newborns: a promising biomarker. Frontiers in Pediatrics. 2021;9:779663. doi: 10.3389/fped.2021.779663 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Joram N, Muller J-B, Denizot S, Orsonneau J-L, Caillon J, Rozé J-C, et al. Umbilical cord blood procalcitonin level in early neonatal infections: a 4-year university hospital cohort study. European journal of clinical microbiology infectious diseases. 2011;30:1005–13. doi: 10.1007/s10096-011-1187-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Bianco B, François-Garret B, Butin M, Dalmasso C, Casagrande F, Mokhtari M, et al. Procalcitonin in preterm neonates: a different threshold and prolonged interpretation. Frontiers in Pediatrics. 2021;9:623043. doi: 10.3389/fped.2021.623043 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Great Britain). Neonatal infection: antibiotics for prevention and treatment. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE); 2021. [PubMed]
  • 14.Chiesa C, Pacifico L, Natale F, Hofer N, Osborn JF, Resch B. Fetal and early neonatal interleukin-6 response. Cytokine. 2015;76(1):1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.cyto.2015.03.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Mangogna A, Agostinis C, Ricci G, Romano F, Bulla R. Overview of procalcitonin in pregnancy and in pre-eclampsia. Clin Exp Immunol. 2019;198(1):37–46. doi: 10.1111/cei.13311 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Liu BM, Li NL, Wang R, Li X, Li ZA, Marion TN, et al. Key roles for phosphorylation and the Coiled-coil domain in TRIM56-mediated positive regulation of TLR3-TRIF-dependent innate immunity. J Biol Chem. 2024;300(5):107249. doi: 10.1016/j.jbc.2024.107249 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Schuetz P, Albrich W, Mueller B. Procalcitonin for diagnosis of infection and guide to antibiotic decisions: past, present and future. BMC medicine. 2011;9:1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Kordek A, Torbe A, Czajka R. Maternal venous procalcitonin levels do not correlate with umbilical cord blood and venous blood concentrations in the neonate. Journal of perinatal medicine. 2006;34(6):462–5. doi: 10.1515/JPM.2006.109 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Su H, Chang S, Han C, Wu K, Li M, Huang C, et al. Inflammatory markers in cord blood or maternal serum for early detection of neonatal sepsis—a systemic review and meta-analysis. Journal of perinatology. 2014;34(4):268–74. doi: 10.1038/jp.2013.186 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Meena CL, Sharma R, Bagri DR, Singh N. Diagnostic Accuracy of Cord and Venous Blood Procalcitonin in Relation to Neonatal Sepsis Screen. Journal of Neonatology. 2022;36(4):288–97. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Tran LU, Giang TPL, Nguyen TT. Validity of Umbilical Cord Blood Procalcitonin in the Diagnosis of Early-Onset Neonatal Infection. Cureus. 2024;16(5). doi: 10.7759/cureus.59887 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Frerot A, Baud O, Colella M, Taibi L, Bonacorsi S, Alberti C, et al. Cord blood procalcitonin level and early-onset sepsis in extremely preterm infants. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology Infectious Diseases. 2019;38:1651–7. doi: 10.1007/s10096-019-03593-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Hue‐Bigé A, François‐Garret B, Casagrande F, Oertel J, Mayerus M, Eleni Dit Trolli S. Early procalcitonin assays may reduce antibiotic exposure in premature newborn infants. Acta Paediatrica. 2024;113(5):939–46. doi: 10.1111/apa.17137 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Benjamin M Liu

8 Dec 2024

PONE-D-24-51453The Diagnostic Accuracy of Umbilical Cord Procalcitonin in Predicting Early-Onset Neonatal Infection

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Nguyen,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 22 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Benjamin M. Liu, MBBS, PhD, D(ABMM), MB(ASCP)

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “This work was supported by research funds from Hue University (DHH 2023 – 04–202).”

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Please provide a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, ensuring you include all necessary access information or a reason for why you are unable to make your data freely accessible. If your research concerns only data provided within your submission, please write "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files" as your Data Availability Statement.

4. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

6. We note that there is identifying data in the Supporting Information file <data.csv>. Due to the inclusion of these potentially identifying data, we have removed this file from your file inventory. Prior to sharing human research participant data, authors should consult with an ethics committee to ensure data are shared in accordance with participant consent and all applicable local laws. Data sharing should never compromise participant privacy. It is therefore not appropriate to publicly share personally identifiable data on human research participants. The following are examples of data that should not be shared: -Name, initials, physical address -Ages more specific than whole numbers -Internet protocol (IP) address -Specific dates (birth dates, death dates, examination dates, etc.) -Contact information such as phone number or email address -Location data -ID numbers that seem specific (long numbers, include initials, titled “Hospital ID”) rather than random (small numbers in numerical order) Data that are not directly identifying may also be inappropriate to share, as in combination they can become identifying. For example, data collected from a small group of participants, vulnerable populations, or private groups should not be shared if they involve indirect identifiers (such as sex, ethnicity, location, etc.) that may risk the identification of study participants. Additional guidance on preparing raw data for publication can be found in our Data Policy (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-human-research-participant-data-and-other-sensitive-data) and in the following article: http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long. Please remove or anonymize all personal information (<specific identifying information in file to be removed>), ensure that the data shared are in accordance with participant consent, and re-upload a fully anonymized data set. Please note that spreadsheet columns with personal information must be removed and not hidden as all hidden columns will appear in the published file.

Additional Editor Comments:

Editor's comments:

1. PCT's role in other infections should be introduced and more references should be cited, with this one (PMID: 33337932) as an example (citing is optional)

2. "Early diagnosis is essential for optimizing treatment outcomes.": More references need to be cited, with these ones (PMID: 38042947 and 39221481) as examples (citing is optional)

3. "exposure to bacteria triggers an inflammatory response in the fetus, increasing levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines like interleukin-6, interleukin-10": In this statement bacteria should be changed to pathogens. More references should be cited, with this one (PMID: 38556084) as an example (citing is optional).

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Although this research introduces a very important problem and may be a fetal one but, I don't think the manuscript added a new findings, as it is clear in the discussion part. Sample size needs to increase to give a reliable results

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2025 Jan 16;20(1):e0316987. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0316987.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


17 Dec 2024

Respond to Editor and Reviewers

1. Comment 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Reply 1: Thank you for your suggestion. We have followed up the guideline for preparing manuscript.

2. Comment 2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “This work was supported by research funds from Hue University (DHH 2023 – 04–202).”

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Reply 2: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added this one in the rebuttal letter.

This work was supported by research funds from Hue University, Viet Nam (DHH 2023 – 04–202). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

3. Comment 3: Please provide a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, ensuring you include all necessary access information or a reason for why you are unable to make your data freely accessible. If your research concerns only data provided within your submission, please write "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files" as your Data Availability Statement.

Reply 3: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added this one in the manuscripts.

4. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

Reply 4: As data consists in the manuscript, it can be shared publicly. We have deposited data into the Supporting Information.

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Reply 5: We have thoroughly reviewed and updated.

6. We note that there is identifying data in the Supporting Information file <data.csv>. Due to the inclusion of these potentially identifying data, we have removed this file from your file inventory. Prior to sharing human research participant data, authors should consult with an ethics committee to ensure data are shared in accordance with participant consent and all applicable local laws. Data sharing should never compromise participant privacy. It is therefore not appropriate to publicly share personally identifiable data on human research participants. The following are examples of data that should not be shared: -Name, initials, physical address -Ages more specific than whole numbers -Internet protocol (IP) address -Specific dates (birth dates, death dates, examination dates, etc.) -Contact information such as phone number or email address -Location data -ID numbers that seem specific (long numbers, include initials, titled “Hospital ID”) rather than random (small numbers in numerical order) Data that are not directly identifying may also be inappropriate to share, as in combination they can become identifying. For example, data collected from a small group of participants, vulnerable populations, or private groups should not be shared if they involve indirect identifiers (such as sex, ethnicity, location, etc.) that may risk the identification of study participants. Additional guidance on preparing raw data for publication can be found in our Data Policy (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-human-research-participant-data-and-other-sensitive-data) and in the following article: http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long. Please remove or anonymize all personal information (<specific identifying information in file to be removed>), ensure that the data shared are in accordance with participant consent, and re-upload a fully anonymized data set. Please note that spreadsheet columns with personal information must be removed and not hidden as all hidden columns will appear in the published file.

Reply 6: Thank you for your critical point regarding data sharing. We have thoroughly reviewed all variables and data in the Excel file. There is no sensitive information that can be identified, as explained above.

Additional Editor Comments:

Editor's comments:

Comment 1. PCT's role in other infections should be introduced and more references should be cited, with this one (PMID: 33337932) as an example (citing is optional).

Reply 1: Thank you for your suggestion. We added this information into the introduction of the revised manuscript and provided the following citations you recommended.

“Previous studies have shown that, PCT is an early inflammatory marker with high specificity in response to severe systemic infections. It can be used for early detection, assessment of severity, and prognosis of the diseases.”

7. Abdollahi A, Shoar S, Nayyeri F, Shariat M. Diagnostic Value of Simultaneous Measurement of Procalcitonin, Interleukin-6 and hs-CRP in Prediction of Early-Onset Neonatal Sepsis. Mediterr J Hematol Infect Dis. 2012;4(1):e2012028.

8. Liu BM, Hill HR. Role of Host Immune and Inflammatory Responses in COVID-19 Cases with Underlying Primary Immunodeficiency: A Review. J Interferon Cytokine Res. 2020;40(12):549-54.

Comment 2. "Early diagnosis is essential for optimizing treatment outcomes.": More references need to be cited, with these ones (PMID: 38042947 and 39221481) as examples (citing is optional).

Reply 2: Thank you for your suggestion. We cited the following references for this point in the revised manuscript.

2. Huetz N, Launay E, Gascoin G, Leboucher B, Savagner C, Muller JB, et al. Potential impact of umbilical-cord-blood procalcitonin-based algorithm on antibiotics exposure in neonates with suspected early-onset sepsis. Frontiers in pediatrics. 2020;8:127.

3. Liu BM. Epidemiological and clinical overview of the 2024 Oropouche virus disease outbreaks, an emerging/re-emerging neurotropic arboviral disease and global public health threat. J Med Virol. 2024;96(9):e29897.

4. Liu BM, Mulkey SB, Campos JM, DeBiasi RL. Laboratory diagnosis of CNS infections in children due to emerging and re-emerging neurotropic viruses. Pediatr Res. 2024;95(2):543-50.

Comment 3. "exposure to bacteria triggers an inflammatory response in the fetus, increasing levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines like interleukin-6, interleukin-10": In this statement bacteria should be changed to pathogens. More references should be cited, with this one (PMID: 38556084) as an example (citing is optional).

Reply 3: Thank you. We edited this part in the revised manuscript and cited the following references:

14. Mangogna A, Agostinis C, Ricci G, Romano F, Bulla R. Overview of procalcitonin in pregnancy and in pre-eclampsia. Clin Exp Immunol. 2019;198(1):37-46.

15. Liu BM, Li NL, Wang R, Li X, Li ZA, Marion TN, et al. Key roles for phosphorylation and the Coiled-coil domain in TRIM56-mediated positive regulation of TLR3-TRIF-dependent innate immunity. J Biol Chem. 2024;300(5):107249.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reply 1: Thank you. Our study aimed to provide more evidence to support recommendations on using umbilical cord PCT for early EOI diagnosis, addressing the current lack of consensus in the literature.

About sample size, we also mentioned our limitations in this study. However, this study was conducted over a period of more than one year. During this time, we followed nearly 2765 newborns born in our hospital, monitoring all risk factors and early-onset infections. From this cohort, we obtained a sample size of 126 cases, including 44 cases of EOI.

To provide further clarity on the research process and data collection, we included this information in the methods section of the revised manuscript.

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reply 2: Thank you. We have carefully rechecked our data and statistical analysis. We have confirmed the accuracy of our original findings and will retain the current results.

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Although this research introduces a very important problem and may be a fetal one but, I don't think the manuscript added a new findings, as it is clear in the discussion part. Sample size needs to increase to give a reliable results.

Reply 3: We are very grateful for the supportive feedback on our manuscript and its research content. We hope to have the opportunity to publish our research findings to contribute more evidence for the early diagnosis of neonatal early-onset infection, a challenge that persists in neonatology, and make a substantial contribution to the neonatal field.

Regarding sample size, we also mentioned our limitations in this study. However, this study was conducted over a period of more than one year. During this time, we followed nearly 2765newborns born in our hospital, monitoring all risk factors and early-onset infections. From this cohort, we obtained a sample size of 126 cases, including 44 cases of EOI.

Decision Letter 1

Benjamin M Liu

20 Dec 2024

The Diagnostic Accuracy of Umbilical Cord Procalcitonin in Predicting Early-Onset Neonatal Infection

PONE-D-24-51453R1

Dear Dr. Nguyen,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Benjamin M. Liu, MBBS, PhD, D(ABMM), MB(ASCP)

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Benjamin M Liu

7 Jan 2025

PONE-D-24-51453R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Nguyen,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Benjamin M. Liu

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Data set

    (CSV)

    pone.0316987.s001.csv (5.8KB, csv)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES