Effectiveness of Presepsin Examination in Early-Onset Neonatal Sepsis Compared to CRP, hsCRP, MPV, I:T Ratio, NLR, and Pre-Analytical Factors

Abstract

Aims: The primary objective is to collate and evaluate findings from a wide range of previously published studies, thereby offering an integrated understanding of the current state of knowledge. Study Design:  The study design employed in this work is a literature review, which systematically collects and analyzes previously published studies relevant to the research topic. Unlike original experimental or clinical research, this review does not involve new data collection or direct experimentation but rather synthesizes existing evidence to provide a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter. Place and Duration of Study: Department of Pediatrics, Ulin General Hospital, Universitas Lambung Mangkurat, in 5 years literature. Methodology: The methodology of this literature review involved a systematic and rigorous process to identify, select, and synthesize relevant studies from established medical databases. Initially, comprehensive searches were conducted across multiple electronic databases such as PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, using carefully constructed search terms and Boolean operators tailored to capture all pertinent literature related to the research topic. Results: The results of this literature review reveal several key findings that collectively enhance the understanding of the topic. Across the reviewed studies, there is a general consensus on certain core outcomes and methodological approaches, which strengthens the reliability of the synthesized evidence. Common methodologies identified include standardized data collection techniques, consistent use of validated measurement tools, and adherence to established protocols for study design and analysis. Conclusion: The review highlights that while many studies report positive associations or confirmatory evidence supporting specific clinical hypotheses, there remain conflicting results in certain areas. These inconsistencies often stem from heterogeneity in study designs, differences in inclusion criteria, and variations in outcome definitions. Limitations identified within the existing body of literature include small sample sizes in several studies, potential publication bias favoring positive results, and occasional methodological weaknesses such as inadequate control for confounding variables.