ReviewCritical care (London, England)2008
Bench-to-bedside review: the value of cardiac biomarkers in the intensive care patient.
Review in Critical care (London, England), 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Use of Natriuretic Peptides in Critically Ill Patients: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Paeoniflorin and Hydroxysafflor Yellow A in Xuebijing Injection Attenuate Sepsis-Induced Cardiac Dysfunction and Inhibit Proinflammatory Cytokine Production.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2020Article
- Quantitative temporal analysis of protein dynamics in cardiac remodeling.Journal of molecular and cellular cardiology · 2018Article
- Breakthroughs in modern cancer therapy and elusive cardiotoxicity: Critical research-practice gaps, challenges, and insights.Medicinal research reviews · 2018Review
- Organ damage in sickle cell disease study (ORDISS): protocol for a longitudinal cohort study based in Ghana.BMJ open · 2017Article
- [Cardiac biomarkers in the critically ill].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2012Review
- Weaning failure of cardiac origin: recent advances.Critical care (London, England) · 2010Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of cardiac biomarkers in the intensive care setting is gaining increasing popularity. There are several reasons for this increase: there is now the facility for point-of-care biomarker measurement providing a rapid diagnosis; biomarkers can be used as prognostic tools; biomarkers can be used to guide therapy; and, compared with other methods such as echocardiography, the assays are easier and much more affordable. Two important characteristics of the ideal biomarker are disease specificity and a linear relationship between the serum concentration and disease severity. These characteristics are not present, however, in the majority of biomarkers for cardiac dysfunction currently available. Those clinically useful cardiac biomarkers, which naturally received the most attention, such as troponins and B-type natriuretic peptide, are not as specific as was originally thought. In the intensive care setting, it is important for the user to understand the degree of specificity of these biomarkers and that the interpretation of the results should always be guided by other clinical information. The present review summarizes the available biomarkers for different cardiac conditions. Potential biomarkers under evaluation are also briefly discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.