Table 1.
Summary of the studies aimed to understand if procalcitonin (PCT) is a pre‐eclampsia (PE) diagnostic, predictive and/or prognostic marker of PE
| Study | Results | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Agostinis et al. (2018) | Diagnostic marker: yes Predictive marker: no | P < 0·005 |
| (n = 30 PE and 30 HP; predictive study; n = 13 PE and 13 HP) | ||
| Uckan and Sahin (2018) | Diagnostic marker: yes | P < 0·001 |
| (n = 30 PE and 30 HP) | ||
| Jannesari and Kazemi (2017) | Diagnostic marker: yes | P < 0·001 |
| (n =59 PE and 50 HP) | ||
| Duckworth et al. (2016) | Diagnostic marker: yes Predictive marker: no | PCT does not represent a useful diagnostic test for determining the development of PE within 14 days (P > 0·001) |
| (n = 143 PE and 280 HP) | ||
| Birdir et al. (2015) | Diagnostic marker: yes Predictive marker: no | PCT does not represent a predictive marker for PE (P > 0·001) |
| (n = 35 PE and 100 HP) | ||
| Artunc‐Ulkumen et al. (2015) | Diagnostic marker: yes Predictive marker: yes | PCT concentrations were significantly higher in PE group (P = 0·001) and levels were correlated with the severity of the PE. PCT can be used for screening test for PE due to high sensitivity (P < 0·001) |
| (n =40 PE and 40 HP) | ||
| Lucy et al. (2013) | Predictive marker: no | PCT does not represent a useful diagnostic test for determining the development of PE within 14 days (P > 0·001) |
| (n = 287 women) | ||
| Kucukgoz Gulec et al. (2012) | Diagnostic marker: yes | P < 0·001 |
| (n = 64 PE and 33 HP) | ||
| Can et al. (2011) | Diagnostic marker: yes | P < 0·001 |
| (n = 72 PE and 33 HP) | ||
| Montagnana et al. (2008) | PCT is a useful prognostic marker of the PE severity | PCT level in the severe PE group was significantly higher than in the mild PE and hypertensive groups. They concluded that rather than being a simple marker, PCT is an inflammatory mediator (such as cytokine) |
| (n = 24 PE and 12 with hypertension but without proteinuria) |
HP = healthy pregnant.