Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27683533›Full record

ArticleEJIFCC2016

Analytical Issues with Natriuretic Peptides - has this been Overly Simplified?

Alexander G Semenov, Alexey G Katrukha

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EJIFCC, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. BNP/NT-proBNP in pulmonary arterial hypertension: time for point-of-care testing?European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. BNP as a Major Player in the Heart-Kidney Connection.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Alexander G SemenovHyTest Ltd. , Turku, Finland.
Alexey G KatrukhaHyTest Ltd. , Turku, Finland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Natriuretic peptides (NPs) were first described as cardiac biomarkers more than two decades ago. Since that time, numerous studies have confirmed NPs' diagnostic and prognostic utilities as biomarkers of myocardial function. However, we must now admit that despite the NPs' relatively long period of use in clinical practice, our understanding of the biochemistry and the variety of circulating forms of NPs, as well as of their potential as biomarkers, remains far from being complete and comprehensive. The highly complex nature and wide diversity of circulating forms of NPs make their accurate measurements in plasma far more complex than initially believed. A highly simplistic view of the NPs' use is that elevated values of NPs indicate the severity of heart failure and thus reflect the prognosis. However, as shown by a variety of studies, deep understanding of how the NP system works will be required for correct interpretation of test results in routine practice of cardiovascular disease. In this review, we summarize the recent advances in understanding of the complexity of the NP system and discuss related analytical issues, which open new horizons, as well as challenges for clinical diagnostics.

Indexed as

ANPBNPglycosylationimmunoassaynatriuretic peptideNT-proBNPproBNPprocessing

Identifiers

PMID27683533
PMCPMC5009944

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.