SynthesisHeart failure reviews2014
Prediction of clinical outcomes using B-type natriuretic peptides in the general population: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Heart failure reviews, 2014. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of B-type natriuretic peptides to predict outcomes in general populations has been investigated in a number of primary studies. A previous systematic review considering natriuretic peptides in cardiovascular disease included a subgroup of general population studies, which suggested an association with a number of clinical outcomes. We electronically searched Medline, Embase, AMED, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and CINAHL for English-language articles published between 1989 and mid-2012. We utilized trained reviewers and standardized forms to screen articles for inclusion and extract data from included articles. All included studies (n = 7) were summarized in narrative and tabular form. A general population was defined as one that was randomly selected from a community setting where no specific inclusion or exclusion criteria were specified. The seven included studies all used FDA approved assays for NT-proBNP. The range of clinical outcomes and heterogeneity did not allow for meta-analysis. The hazard ratios for predicting outcomes in the included studies ranged from 1.0 to 4.1 (all p values <0.05). The discrimination statistics reported in four studies all demonstrated statistically significant improvements in predicting outcomes. NT-proBNP is associated with heart failure, all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, and other combined cardiovascular events in a general unselected population. The discrimination statistics suggest modest improvements in risk stratification. No prospective studies exist to demonstrate the clinical utility of using B-type natriuretic peptides to predict clinical outcomes in a general population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25052419What 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.