Simon et al. (2004; 39:206-17)

Serum procalcitonin and C-reactive protein levels as markers of bacterial infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clin Infect Dis 2004; 39:206-17), several errors were made in the data presented, requiring corrections to the text, the abstract, tables 4 and 5, and figures 1 and 2.The data in the sixth and seventh paragraphs of the Results section require a number of corrections and adjustments.In the sixth paragraph, the estimations of sensitivity and specificity for bacterial infections compared with noninfective causes of inflammation require the following corrections.Pooled sensitivity for procalcitonin (PCT) was 85% (95% CI, 0.76-0.91),compared with 78% (95% CI, 0.70-0.85)for C-reactive protein (CRP); there was a statistically significant difference between the sensitivities: 7% (95% CI, 0.23-0.11;). Pooled spec-P !.05ificity for PCT was also higher than for CRP: 83% (95% CI, 0.68-0.92)versus 60% (95% CI, 0.38-0.79),respectively, and this difference was statistically significant: 23% (95% CI, 0.18-0.28;).This was confirmed on calculation of the Q value, P !.05which was higher for PCT ( ; 95% CI, 0.64-0.95)than Q p 0.82 that for CRP ( ; 95% CI, 0.68-0.82).Q p 0.75 In the seventh paragraph of Results, the data for evaluation of these markers for bacterial infections versus viral infections requires the following corrections.Pooled sensitivity for PCT was 82% (95% CI, 0.65-0.92),compared with 73% (95% CI, 0.62-0.82)for CRP, and the difference is statistically significant: 9% (95% CI, 0.02-0.16;). Pooled specificities were also P !.05higher for PCT than for CRP: 88% (95% CI, 0.50-0.98)versus 81% (95% CI, 0.55-0.93),respectively, with a difference of 7% (95% CI, Ϫ0.01 to 0.13;).The Q value calculated from P 1 .05 the curves was slightly higher for PCT ( ; 95% CI, Q p 0.85 0.83-0.87)than for CRP ( ; 95% CI, 0.74-0.90),sug-Q p 0.82 gesting that, in terms of overall accuracy, PCT is somewhat better than CRP in differentiating between bacterial and viral infections.