Evidence Hub

The value of procalcitonin and urinary NGAL in the prediction of acute pyelonephritis and kidney scarring in pediatric patients with a history of febrile urinary tract infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

N. Gkiourtzis, Anastasia Stoimeni, Panagiota Michou, Nikolaos Charitakis, Konstantinos Cheirakis, Vasileios Liakos, K. Makedou, N. Printza et al.

Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, West), 2025

2,300 participants · 4 citations

Abstract

Children with febrile urinary tract infections (fUTI), especially those with acute pyelonephritis (APN) and vesicoureteral reflux (VUR), may face several complications, especially kidney scarring. Different biomarkers, such as urinary neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (uNGAL) and procalcitonin (PCT), have been studied for predicting kidney scarring without the need for a DMSA scan. This systematic review and meta-analysis examines the role of biomarkers in pediatric patients with a history of fUTI and their prognostic value in the diagnosis of APN and prediction of kidney scarring. A search through major databases (MEDLINE/PubMed and Scopus) was conducted from inception until January 2, 2025. The mean difference (95% CI) was applied. A p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The systematic review included 2300 participants from 28 studies. Procalcitonin and uNGAL were higher in individuals with scarring after a fUTI episode compared to those without scarring (p = 0.035 and p < 0.0001, respectively). In addition, PCT was higher in patients with APN compared to those with lower UTI (p < 0.0001). Finally, the good and moderate overall diagnostic accuracy (I2 = 29.8%) of PCT in predicting APN (AUC: 0.861) and uNGAL (I2 = 16.8%) in predicting kidney scarring after an episode of fUTI (AUC: 0.74), respectively, should be considered. This study showed that PCT and uNGAL can detect APN and kidney scarring after fUTI. More studies should be conducted exploring the…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 2,300 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free