ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2015
Pre-analytic variability in cardiovascular biomarker testing.
Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Peptidomics in the Spotlight: Advanced Sample Treatment Techniques and Analytical Insights.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2026Review
- From acute diagnosis to longitudinal risk stratification: a paradigm shift in the clinical role of cardiac biomarkers.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Confounders in Identification and Analysis of Inflammatory Biomarkers in Cardiovascular Diseases.Biomolecules · 2021Review
- Tutorial: best practices and considerations for mass-spectrometry-based protein biomarker discovery and validation.Nature protocols · 2021Review
- Analytical performance of a single epitope B-type natriuretic peptide sandwich immunoassay on the Minicare platform for point-of-care diagnostics.Practical laboratory medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The impact of laboratory medicine on clinical cardiology has dramatically increased over the years and a lot of cardiovascular biomarkers have been recently proposed. In order to avoid clinical mistakes, physicians should be well aware of all the aspects, which could affect the quality of laboratory results, remembering that pre-analytic variability is an often overlooked significant source of bias, determining the vast majority of laboratory errors. This review addresses the determinants of pre-analitycal variability in cardiovascular biomarker testing, focusing on the most widespread biomarkers, which are cardiac troponins and natriuretic peptides.
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.