Comparison of Procalcitonin Levels in Diabetic Foot Ulcer Infection and Osteomyelitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Abstract
Background
Foot ulcers represent a major complication in patients with diabetes and are often challenging for clinicians. Distinguishing between infected and non-infected diabetes foot ulcers (DFUs) can prevent many irreversible injuries such as inappropriate antibiotic therapy, amputation, and even death. Procalcitonin (PCT) has been proposed in the diagnosis of infection and osteomyelitis in diabetes foot ulcers. The present study aimed to compare PCT levels between patients with and without infected diabetes foot ulcer (IDFU).
Method
This review searched three databases including PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus to identify all articles reporting PCT levels in two groups of infected diabetes foot ulcer (IDFU) and non-infected diabetes foot ulcer (NIDFU). Quality has been assessed using the NIH tool. The pooled mean difference (MD) of PCT level between groups was estimated by random effect meta-analysis. In addition, The PRISMA 2020 statement has been used to update guidelines for reporting present systematic reviews.
Result
Twenty-three studies were eligible for meta-analysis, of which data from 2412 people was extracted. Pooled estimation of PCT level was significantly higher in IDFU patients compared with NIDFU patients (MD = 0.25 ng/l, 95% CI: 0.14-0.37). According to the meta-analysis results, PCT level was not significantly higher in patients with Osteomyelitis compared with those without Osteomyelitis (MD = 0.59 ng/l, 95% CI: −0.19, 1.38, I2 = 98.5%).
Conclusion
Since the results of the present study showed higher PCT levels in patients with IDFU compared to those without, it can be suggested that procalcitonin might be applied as an additional biomarker for the differentiation of NIDFU from IDFU. It needs more evidence to conclude about the role of PCT in terms of osteomyelitis and amputation.
Get full access to this article
View all access and purchase options for this article.
Reference
1. Everett E, Mathioudakis N. Association of area deprivation and diabetic ketoacidosis readmissions: Comparative risk analysis of adults vs children with type 1 diabetes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2019;104(8):3473-3480.
2. Korkmaz P, Koçak H, Onbaşı K, et al. The role of serum procalcitonin, interleukin-6, and fibrinogen levels in differential diagnosis of diabetic foot ulcer infection. J Diabetes Res. 2018;2018, J. Diabetes Res. 2018;2018.
3. Federation ID. Diabetes atlas. 10th edition. 2022.
4. Monteiro-Soares M, Hamilton EJ, Russell DA, et al. Classification of foot ulcers in people with diabetes: A systematic review. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2024;40(3):e3645.
5. Game F. Classification of diabetic foot ulcers. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2016;32:186-194.
6. Siavash M, Najjarnezhad A, Mohseni N, Abtahi SM, Karimy A, Sabzevari MH. Efficacy of maggot debridement therapy on refractory atypical diabetic foot ulcers: An open-label study. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2021;20(4):315-320.
7. Monteiro-Soares M, Hamilton EJ, Russell DA, et al. Classification of foot ulcers in people with diabetes: A systematic review. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2023:e3645-e.
8. Boulton AJ, Armstrong DG, Hardman MJ, et al. Diagnosis and management of diabetic foot infections. Compendia. 2020;2020(1).
9. Glaudemans A, Uçkay I, Lipsky BA. Challenges in diagnosing infection in the diabetic foot. Diabet Med. 2015;32(6):748-759.
10. Al-Shammaree SAW, Abu-ALkaseem BA, Salman IN. Procalcitonin levels and other biochemical parameters in patients with or without diabetic foot complications. J Res Med Sci: the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences. 2017;22.
11. Memar MY, Varshochi M, Shokouhi B, Asgharzadeh M, Kafil HS. Procalcitonin: The marker of pediatric bacterial infection. Biomed Pharmacother. 2017;96:936-943.
12. Ng K-J, Yu H-C, Huang Tseng H-Y, Hsu C-W, Lu M-C. Modestly elevated Serum procalcitonin levels in patients with rheumatoid arthritis free of active infection. Medicina (B Aires). 2020;56(10):545.
13. Li Z, Xiao Y, Zhang L. Application of procalcitonin, white blood cell count and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in the diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus with a bacterial infection. Ann Palliat Med. 2020;9(6):3870-3876.
14. Hatzistilianou M. Diagnostic and prognostic role of procalcitonin in infections. TheScientificWorldJOURNAL. 2010;10:1941-1946.
15. Velissaris D, Pantzaris N-D, Platanaki C, Antonopoulou N, Gogos C. Procalcitonin as a diagnostic and prognostic marker in diabetic foot infection. A current literature review. Romanian J Intern Med Rev Roum Med Interne. 2018;56(1):3-8.
16. Ma L-L, Wang Y-Y, Yang Z-H, Huang D, Weng H, Zeng X-T. Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment tools for primary and secondary medical studies: What are they and which is better? Mil. Med. Res. 2020;7:1-11.
17. Hadavand F, Amouzegar A, Amid H. Pro-calcitonin, erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein in predicting diabetic foot ulcer characteristics; a cross sectional study. Arch. acad. emerg. 2019;7(1).
18. Meloni M, Izzo V, Giurato L, et al. Procalcitonin is a prognostic marker of hospital outcomes in patients with critical limb ischemia and diabetic foot infection. J. Diabetes Res. 2019;2019.
19. Efat K, Allameh SF, Mehrnaz A, Manoochehr N, Alireza A. Diagnostic value of serum procalcitonin level for detecting infected diabetic foot ulcers. Ann Med Health Sci Res. 2018;8(1).
20. Zakariah NA, Bajuri MY, Hassan R, et al. Is Procalcitonin more superior to hs-CRP in the diagnosis of infection in diabetic foot ulcer? Malays. J. Pathol. 2020;42(1):77-84.
21. El-Kafrawy NA, Shaaban MA, Korany MA, Sonbol AA, Ata MB. Procalcitonin as a marker of diabetic foot ulcer infection. Egypt J Intern Med. 2019;31(4):652-657.
22. Jeandrot A, Richard J-L, Combescure C, et al. Serum procalcitonin and C-reactive protein concentrations to distinguish mildly infected from non-infected diabetic foot ulcers: A pilot study. Diabetologia. 2008;51(2):347-352.
23. Ingram J, Cawley S, Coulman E, et al. Levels of wound calprotectin and other inflammatory biomarkers aid in deciding which patients with a diabetic foot ulcer need antibiotic therapy (INDUCE study). Diabet Med. 2018;35(2):255-261.
24. Umapathy D, Dornadula S, Rajagopalan A, et al. Potential of circulatory procalcitonin as a biomarker reflecting inflammation among South Indian diabetic foot ulcers. J Vasc Surg. 2018;67(4):1283-91.e2.
25. Park JH, Suh DH, Kim HJ, Lee YI, Kwak IH, Choi GW. Role of procalcitonin in infected diabetic foot ulcer. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2017;128:51-57.
26. Ozer Balin S, Sagmak Tartar A, Uğur K, et al. Pentraxin-3: A new parameter in predicting the severity of diabetic foot infection? Int Wound J. 2019;16(3):659-664.
27. Jafari NJ, Firouzabadi MS, Izadi M, Firouzabadi MSS, Saburi A. Can procalcitonin be an accurate diagnostic marker for the classification of diabetic foot ulcers? I Int. j. endocrinol. metab. 2014;12(1).
28. Todorova AS, Dimova RB, Chakarova NY, et al. Comparative evaluation of the diagnostic value of procalcitonin and hsCRP for the presence of mild-to-moderate diabetic foot infections. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2021;15347346211011849.
29. Taher MT, Moradi S, Azizi MR, Shekarabi M, Barati M. Procalcitonin in diagnosing the diabetic foot infection. Arch. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2011;6(2).
30. Michail M, Jude E, Liaskos C, et al. The performance of serum inflammatory markers for the diagnosis and follow-up of patients with osteomyelitis. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2013;12(2):94-99.
31. Mutluoğlu M, Uzun G, İpcioğlu OM, et al. Can procalcitonin predict bone infection in people with diabetes with infected foot ulcers? A pilot study. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2011;94(1):53-56.
32. Van Asten SA, Nichols A, La Fontaine J, Bhavan K, Peters EJ, Lavery LA. The value of inflammatory markers to diagnose and monitor diabetic foot osteomyelitis. Int Wound J. 2017;14(1):40-45.
33. Osquee HO, Pourhassan A, Sadeghian P, Pourjafar H, Ansari F. Procalcitonin as a biomarker for diabetic foot ulcer. Metab. Agents Med (Formerly Current Medicinal Chemistry-Immunology, Endocrine and Metabolic Agents). 2017;17(2):135-139.
34. Vangaveti VN, Heyes O, Jhamb S, Haleagrahara N, Malabu UH. Usefulness of procalcitonin in diagnosing diabetic foot osteomyelitis: A pilot study. Wounds: A Compendium of Clinical Research and Practice. 2021;33(7):192-196.
35. Ozer Balin S, Ozcan EC, Uğur K. A new inflammatory marker of clinical and diagnostic importance in diabetic foot infection: Systemic immune-inflammation Index. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2022:15347346221130817.
36. Aslan S, Demirdal T, Erbak H, Aslan C. The role of soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) in the diagnostics of diabetic foot infection. Infect. Dis. 2020;52(2):107-113.
37. Uzun G, Solmazgul E, Curuksulu H, et al. Procalcitonin as a diagnostic aid in diabetic foot infections. Tohoku J Exp Med. 2007;213(4):305-312.
38. Karakas A, Arslan E, Cakmak T, Aydin I, Akgul EO, Demirbas S. Predictive value of soluble CD14, Interleukin-6 and procalcitonin for lower extremity amputation in people with diabetes with foot ulcers: A pilot study. Pak. J. Med. Sci. 2014;30(3):578.
39. Reiner MM, Khoury WE, Canales MB, et al. Procalcitonin as a biomarker for predicting amputation level in lower extremity infections. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2017;56(3):484-491.
40. Soleimani Z, Amighi F, Vakili Z, Momen-Heravi M, Moravveji SA. Diagnostic value of procalcitonin, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), quantitative C-reactive protein (CRP) and clinical findings associated with osteomyelitis in patients with diabetic foot. Hum. Antibodies. 2021;29(2):115-121.
41. Raheem SG, Al-Barzinji RM, Mansoor HY, Al-Dabbagh AA, eds. Procalcitonin and proinflammatory parameters in diabetic foot infection as new predictive factor. In: AIP Conference Proceedings. AIP Publishing LLC; 2017.
42. Saeed K, Ahmad N, Dryden M. The value of procalcitonin measurement in localized skin and skin structure infection, diabetic foot infections, septic arthritis and osteomyelitis. Expert Rev. Mol. Diagn. 2014;14(1):47-54.
43. El-naggar AAZ, El-Messallamy FAE-F, Soliman JSA, El-Banna KA, Soliman AS. Role of procalcitonin on osteomyelitis and soft tissue infection in diabetic foot ulcers. J. Pharm. Negat. 2022:3160-3164.
44. Sharma H, Sharma S, Krishnan A, et al. The efficacy of inflammatory markers in diagnosing infected diabetic foot ulcers and diabetic foot osteomyelitis: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Plos one. 2022;17(4):e0267412.
45. Atallah CJ, Panossian VS, Atallah NJ, Roberts MB, Mansour MK. Extra-pulmonary applications of procalcitonin: An updated literature review. Expert Rev. Mol. Diagn. 2022;22(5):537-544.
46. Aura Victoria van Asten S, Joseph Geradus Peters E, Xi Y, Alfred Lavery L. The role of biomarkers to diagnose diabetic foot osteomyelitis. A meta-analysis. Curr. Diabetes Rev. 2016;12(4):396-402.
47. Shen C-J, Wu M-S, Lin K-H, et al. The use of procalcitonin in the diagnosis of bone and joint infection: A systemic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect. 2013;32:807-814.
48. Jia W, Dou W, Zeng H, et al. Diagnostic value of serum CRP, PCT and IL-6 in children with nephrotic syndrome complicated by infection: A single center retrospective study. Pediatr. Res. 2024;95(3):722-728.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
Cite
Cite
Cite
OR
Download to reference manager
If you have citation software installed, you can download citation data to the citation manager of your choice
Information, rights and permissions
Information
Published In
Article first published online: March 17, 2025
Issue published: June 2026
Keywords
Article versions
You are viewing the most recent version of this article. To download and view previous versions, see below:
PubMed: 40096021
Authors
Metrics and citations
Metrics
Journals metrics
This article was published in The International Journal of Lower Extremity Wounds.
View All Journal MetricsPublication usage*
Total views and downloads: 147
*Publication usage tracking started in December 2016
Publications citing this one
Receive email alerts when this publication is cited
Web of Science: 0 view articles Opens in new tab
Crossref:
There are no citing articles to show.
Figures and tables
Figures & Media
Tables
View Options
Access options
If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:
I am signed in as:
View my profileSign out
I can access personal subscriptions, purchases, paired institutional access and free tools such as favourite journals, email alerts and saved searches.
loading institutional access options
Alternatively, view purchase options below:
Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.
Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.
