Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29100545›Full record

SynthesisBMC research notes2017

A systematic review and diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis of the validity of anion gap as a screening tool for hyperlactatemia.

Stella Andrea Glasmacher, William Stones

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic ReviewValidation Study
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC research notes, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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.

Stella Andrea GlasmacherBrighton and Sussex Medical School, BSMS Teaching Building, University of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9PX, UK.
William StonesDepartments of Public Health and Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Malawi College of Medicine, Private Bag 360, Chichiri, Blantyre 3, Malawi. wstones@medcol.mw.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0699-2381

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis seeks to determine the validity of the anion gap to screen for hyperlactatemia in critically ill patients. We have previously shown that the anion gap does not predict 31-day and in-hospital mortality in critically ill patients. The present review aims to add confirmatory evidence to identify whether the anion gap is a suitable tool for risk stratification in low-resource countries.

resultsNine studies reporting on 4504 samples from 2111 patients were included. The anion gap failed to detect hyperlactatemia defined as lactate above 2.5 mmol/l but showed good discriminatory ability for the detection of severe hyperlactatemia defined as lactate over 4 mmol/l. At the 2.5 mmol/l threshold, the anion gap had high specificity but low sensitivity for the detection of hyperlactatemia. A meta-analysis of correlation coefficients yielded high statistical heterogeneity. Therefore, in keeping with our previous findings, the use of the anion gap for risk stratification as an alternative to lactate cannot be recommended. However, the strength of the evidence we have synthesised is adversely affected by the small number of studies included, inconsistency of effect measures and positivity thresholds reported, and selection bias within individual studies. PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42015016470 (registered on the 4th February 2015).

Indexed as

Acid-Base EquilibriumHumansHyperlactatemiaSensitivity and SpecificityAnion gapHyperlactatemiaLactateMeta-analysisRisk stratificationSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID29100545
PMCPMC5670505

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.