ArticlePloS one2015
No Added Value of Novel Biomarkers in the Diagnostic Assessment of Patients Suspected of Acute Coronary Syndrome.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic performance of the Myocardial-Ischaemic-Injury index machine-learning algorithm in patients with an initial indeterminate troponin.Open heart · 2026Trial
- Cardiac Markers in Pediatric Laboratory Medicine: Critical Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Literature Review: The sFlt1/PlGF Ratio and Pregestational Maternal Comorbidities: New Risk Factors to Predict Pre-Eclampsia.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Prognosis of undiagnosed chest pain: linked electronic health record cohort study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite the availability of high-sensitive troponin (hs-cTnT), there is still room for improvement in the diagnostic assessment of patients suspected of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Apart from serial biomarker testing, which is time-consuming, novel biomarkers like copeptin have been proposed to expedite the early diagnosis of suspected ACS in addition to hs-cTnT. We determined whether placenta derived growth factor (PlGF), soluble Fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 (sFlt-1), myoglobin, N-terminal prohormone B-type Natriuretic Peptide (NT-proBNP), growth-differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15) and copeptin improved early assessment of chest pain patients.
methodsThis prospective, single centre diagnostic FAME-ER study included patients presenting to the ED with symptoms suggestive of ACS. Blood was collected to measure biomarkers, notably, hs-cTnT was retrospectively assessed. Added value of markers was judged by increase in AUC using multivariable logistic regression.
resultsOf 453 patients enrolled, 149 (33%) received a final diagnosis of ACS. Hs-cTnT had the highest diagnostic value in both univariable and multivariable analysis. PPVs of the biomarkers ranged from 23.5% (PlGF) to 77.9% (hs-cTnT), NPVs from 67.0% (PlGF) to 86.4% (hs-cTnT). Only myoglobin yielded diagnostic value in addition to clinical symptoms and electrocardiography (ECG) (AUC of clinical model 0.80) with AUC of 0.84 (p<0.001). However, addition of hs-cTnT was superior (AUC 0.89, p<0.001). Addition of the biomarkers to our clinical model and hs-cTnT did not or only marginally (GDF-15) improved diagnostic performance.
conclusionWhen assessing patients suspected of ACS, only myoglobin had added diagnostic value beyond clinical symptoms and ECG. However, when combined with hs-cTnT, it yields no additional diagnostic value. PlGF, sFlt-1, NT-proBNP, GDF-15 and copeptin had no added value to the clinical model or hs-cTnT.
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.