ReviewHerz2010
[Is the determination of biomarkers worth its price? Review of the literature taking brain natriuretic peptides (BNP) as an example].
Review in Herz, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Cardiac biomarkers in perioperative medicine : significance for noncardiac surgery patients].Der Anaesthesist · 2011Review
- How can we improve our understanding of cardiovascular safety liabilities to develop safer medicines?British journal of pharmacology · 2011Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Heart failure is an important cardiac disease with an increasing prevalence in Western societies. In addition to a significant reduction of the patient's physical capability and quality of life, cardiac insufficiency is associated with considerable expenditure by national health care systems. A number of imaging techniques are available for the detection of heart failure (e.g., echocardiography), and the use of biomarkers such as brain natriuretic peptides (BNP or NT-proBNP) becomes increasingly popular in the process of screening and diagnosis. Until now, there is a lack of information regarding health-economic aspects of this biomarker use. For this reason, a systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE including all relevant studies published up to and including August 2009. The primary objective was to summarize the main findings of all relevant investigations which focus on health-economic aspects of BNP use as well as NT-proBNP use. Out of 64 initial search results, 13 relevant studies were identified which met the inclusion criteria. Eleven studies were finally included in this literature review. Although the methodology of these studies was very heterogeneous, the majority of investigations indicate that the use of BNP and NT-proBNP, respectively, is a cost-effective procedure for heart failure diagnosis and prognosis, as well as for heart failure screening. However, keeping in mind that the transferability of economics study results is limited due to a number of differences between national health care systems, there are no investigations with a focus on the financial implications for Germany. Further research is required in this context.
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.