Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24969534›Full record

SynthesisHeart failure reviews2014

Performance of BNP and NT-proBNP for diagnosis of heart failure in primary care patients: a systematic review.

Ronald A Booth, Stephen A Hill, Andrew Don-Wauchope, P Lina Santaguida, Mark Oremus, Robert McKelvie, Cynthia Balion, Judy A Brown, Usman Ali, Amy Bustamam 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 30 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Earlier heart failure diagnosis in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Ronald A BoothDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Stephen A Hill
Andrew Don-Wauchope
P Lina Santaguida
Mark Oremus
Robert McKelvie
Cynthia Balion
Judy A Brown
Usman Ali
Amy Bustamam
Nazmul Sohel
Parminder Raina

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

National and international guidelines have been published recommending the use of natriuretic peptides as an aid to the diagnosis of heart failure (HF) in acute settings; however, few specific recommendations exist for governing the use of these peptides in primary care populations. To summarize the available data relevant to the diagnosis of HF in primary care patient population, we systematically reviewed the literature to identify original articles that investigated the diagnostic accuracy of B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal proBNP (NT-proBNP) in primary care settings. The search yielded 25,864 articles in total: 12 investigating BNP and 20 investigating NT-proBNP were relevant to our objective and included in the review. QUADAS-2 and GRADE were used to assess the quality of the included articles. Diagnostic data were pooled based on three cutpoints: lowest and optimal, as chosen by study authors, and manufacturers' suggested. The effect of various determinants (e.g., age, gender, BMI, and renal function) on diagnostic performance was also investigated. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of BNP and NT-proBNP using the lowest [0.85 (sensitivity) and 0.54 (specificity)], optimal (0.80 and 0.61), and manufacturers' (0.74 and 0.67) cutpoints showed good performance for diagnosing HF. Similar performance was seen for NT-proBNP: lowest (0.90 and 0.50), optimal (0.86 and 0.58), and manufacturers' (0.82 and 0.58) cutpoints. Overall, we rated the strength of evidence as high because further studies will be unlikely to change the estimates diagnostic performance.

Indexed as

Primary Health CareHeart FailureHumansNatriuretic Peptide, BrainPeptide FragmentsNatriuretic Peptide, BrainPeptide Fragmentspro-brain natriuretic peptide (1-76)

Identifiers

PMID24969534

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.