Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29700556›Full record

SynthesisHerz2020

Diagnostic value of novel biomarkers for heart failure : A meta-analysis.

Z Huang, J Zhong, Y Ling, Y Zhang, W Lin, L Tang, J Liu, S Li

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Herz, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Galectins for Diagnosis and Prognostic Assessment of Human Diseases: An Overview of Meta-Analyses.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. 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

8 authors.

Z HuangDepartment of Cardiology, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Tianhe Road, 510630, Guangzhou, China.
J ZhongDepartment of Ultrasound, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Tianhe Road, 510630, Guangzhou, China.
Y LingDepartment of Cardiology, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Tianhe Road, 510630, Guangzhou, China.
Y ZhangDepartment of Cardiology, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Tianhe Road, 510630, Guangzhou, China.
W LinDepartment of Cardiology, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Tianhe Road, 510630, Guangzhou, China.
L TangDepartment of Cardiology, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Tianhe Road, 510630, Guangzhou, China.
J LiuDepartment of Cardiology, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Tianhe Road, 510630, Guangzhou, China.
S LiDepartment of Cardiology, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Tianhe Road, 510630, Guangzhou, China. leesh_718@163.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe present meta-analysis examined the diagnostic value of novel biomarkers for heart failure (HF), including copeptin, galectin-3, hs-cTnT, MR-proANP, MR-proADM, and ST2.

methodsEnglish (EMBASE, Cochrane, and PubMed) and Chinese (Wanfang data, CNKI, SinoMed) databases were searched to identify suitable studies that were published before 1 December 2016. Data were extracted using standard forms. Pooled diagnostic statistics were calculated using DerSimonian-Laird random-effects models.

resultsThe analysis comprised 45 studies. The pooled sensitivities of all biomarkers were 0.80-0.86, along with pooled specificities of 0.60-0.82, positive predictive values (PPVs) of 0.52-0.80, and negative predictive values (NPVs) of 0.70-0.87. Among them, hs-cTnT had the highest sensitivity (0.86 [95% CI: 0.84-0.88]), specificity (0.82 [95% CI: 0.79-0.84]), PPV (0.80 [95% CI: 0.77-0.83]), and NPV (0.87 [95% CI: 0.85-0.89]), while MR-proADM had the lowest sensitivity (0.80 [95% CI: 0.75-0.84]), specificity (0.60 [95% CI: 0.56-0.64]), and PPV (0.52 [95% CI: 0.47-0.56]). Copeptin had the lowest NPV (0.70 [95% CI: 0.66-0.74]). The positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of all biomarkers ranged from 1.97 to 3.21, and the negative likelihood ratio (LR-) from 0.20 to 0.36. MR-proADM had the lowest LR+ and highest LR-; galectin-3 had the highest LR+ and MR-proANP had the lowest LR-. The area under the curve (AUC) was as low as 0.68 for MR-proADM, while AUCs for the other biomarkers ranged from 0.83 to 0.89.

conclusionThe overall diagnostic accuracy of copeptin, galectin-3, hs-cTnT, MR-proANP, and ST2 was relatively good. MR-proADM had a poor capacity to confirm or exclude HF. Improving the diagnostic accuracy of HF by a combination of biomarkers could be considered in the future.

Indexed as

BiomarkersHeart FailureHumansSensitivity and SpecificityBiomarkersBiologic markerDiagnosisDiastolic heart failureHeart diseaseSensitivity and specificity

Identifiers

PMID29700556

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.