ArticleYonsei medical journal2016
Lack of Superiority for Soluble ST2 over High Sensitive C-Reactive Protein in Predicting High Risk Coronary Artery Calcium Score in a Community Cohort.
Article in Yonsei medical journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The association between C-reactive protein and coronary artery calcification: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2024Pooled it
- Interleukin family in vascular calcification: molecular mechanisms and therapeutic perspectives.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
- sST2 levels and 3D speckle tracking as predictors of CAD severity in chronic coronary syndrome.The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology · 2024Article
- From Cells to Plaques: The Molecular Pathways of Coronary Artery Calcification and Disease.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Cardiac Biomarkers and Risk of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease in Patients with CKD.Kidney360 · 2022Article
- Soluble ST2 in coronary artery disease: Clinical biomarkers and treatment guidance.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Review
- Clinical study of chlamydia pneumoniae infection in patients with coronary heart disease.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSoluble ST2 (sST2) is an emerging prognostic biomarker in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD). A recent study showed that sST2 predicted incident hypertension. High sensitive C-reactive protein (hsCRP) has been a widely-used biomarker for risk-stratifying in CVD. We compared the abilities of sST2 and hsCRP to predict high risk coronary artery calcium score (CACS). MATERIALS AND
methodsThe CACS was assessed by cardiac computed tomography, and sST2 was measured in 456 subjects enrolled in the Mapo-gu community cohort. In accordance with the 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines, we defined the high risk CACS group as individuals with a CACS ≥300 Agatston units (AU).
resultsThere were 99 (21.7%) subjects with a CACS ≥300 AU. There was a strong correlation between log sST2 and log hsCRP (r=0.128, p=0.006), and both log sST2 and log hsCRP showed significant associations with CACS (r=0.101, p=0.031 for sST2, r=0.101, p=0.032 for hsCRP). In net reclassification improvement (NRI) analysis, the NRI for hsCRP over sST2 was significant [continuous NRI 0.238, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.001-0.474, integrated discrimination index (IDI) 0.022, p=0.035], while the NRI for sST2 over hsCRP was not significant (continuous NRI 0.212, 95% CI -0.255-0.453, IDI 0.002, p=0.269).
conclusionsST2 does not improve net reclassification for predicting a high risk CACS. Using hsCRP provides superior discrimination and risk reclassification for coronary atherosclerosis, compared with sST2.
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.