Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24957908›Full record

SynthesisHeart failure reviews2014

Use of BNP and NT-proBNP for the diagnosis of heart failure in the emergency department: a systematic review of the evidence.

Stephen A Hill, Ronald A Booth, P Lina Santaguida, Andrew Don-Wauchope, Judy A Brown, Mark Oremus, Usman Ali, Amy Bustamam, Nazmul Sohel, Robert McKelvie and 2 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Heart failure reviews, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 59 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

59 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Stephen A HillDepartment of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Ronald A Booth
P Lina Santaguida
Andrew Don-Wauchope
Judy A Brown
Mark Oremus
Usman Ali
Amy Bustamam
Nazmul Sohel
Robert McKelvie
Cynthia Balion
Parminder Raina

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Our purpose was to determine the test performance characteristics of BNP and NT-proBNP in the diagnosis of heart failure for patients presenting to an emergency department or urgent care center. We searched Medline, Embase, AMED, Cochrane, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and CINAHL for English-language articles published between 1989 and June 2012. Studies were limited to those using FDA-approved assays. We examined test performance at three pre-specified cutpoints (manufacturers' suggested, researchers' optimal, and lowest) and considered the effect of age, gender, ethnicity and renal function. We used the QUADAS-2 tool to examine risk of bias and applicability, and the AHRQ Methods Guide to assess the strength of evidence. Seventy-six articles met our inclusion criteria, 37 examined BNP, 25 examined NT-proBNP, and 14 examined both. Pooled sensitivity and specificity for BNP at the three pre-specified cutpoints were 95, 91, and 95 % (sensitivity) and 55, 80, and 67 % (specificity), respectively. For NT-proBNP, sensitivity and specificity at the same cutpoints were 91, 90, and 96 % (sensitivity) and 67, 74, and 55 % (specificity). Both BNP and NT-proBNP perform well to rule out, but less well to rule in, the diagnosis of heart failure among persons presenting to emergency departments or urgent care centers. Both BNP and NT-proBNP levels are positively associated with age and negatively associated with renal function. However, the effect of these factors with respect to selecting optimal cutpoints is unclear. For BNP, 100 pg/mL appears to be a consensus cutpoint. No clear consensus has emerged for NT-proBNP, but the age-adjusted cutpoints of 450 pg/mL for <50 years, 900 pg/mL for 50-75 years and 1,800 pg/mL for >75 years appear promising and merit greater scrutiny and validation.

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalHeart FailureHumansNatriuretic Peptide, BrainPeptide FragmentsNatriuretic Peptide, BrainPeptide Fragmentspro-brain natriuretic peptide (1-76)

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.