Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30700129›Full record

SynthesisArteriosclerosis, thrombosis, and vascular biology2019

Prognostic Hemostasis Biomarkers in Acute Ischemic Stroke.

Samantha J Donkel, Boutaina Benaddi, Diederik W J Dippel, Hugo Ten Cate, Moniek P M de Maat

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Arteriosclerosis, thrombosis, and vascular biology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Does the incidence of frailty differ between men and women over time?Archives of gerontology and geriatrics · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Illustrated State-of-the-Art Capsules of the ISTH 2022 Congress.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2022
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Observational
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

5 authors.

Samantha J DonkelFrom the Departments of Hematology (S.J.D., B.B., M.P.M.d.M.), Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Boutaina BenaddiFrom the Departments of Hematology (S.J.D., B.B., M.P.M.d.M.), Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Diederik W J DippelNeurology (D.W.J.D.), Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Hugo Ten CateCARIM School for Cardiovascular Diseases (H.t.C.), Maastricht University Medical Centre, The Netherlands.
Moniek P M de MaatFrom the Departments of Hematology (S.J.D., B.B., M.P.M.d.M.), Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives- The prediction of patients at risk for poor clinical outcome after acute ischemic stroke remains challenging. An imbalance of coagulation factors may play an important role in progression and prognosis of these patients. In this systematic review, we assessed the current literature on hemostasis biomarkers and the association with poor clinical outcome in acute ischemic stroke. Approach and Results- A systematic search of Embase, Medline, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar was performed on studies reporting on hemostasis biomarkers and clinical outcome after acute ischemic stroke. Studies were considered eligible if blood samples were collected within 72 hours after symptom onset. Additionally, clinical outcome should be assessed using a disability score (Barthel Index or modified Rankin scale). Methodological quality of included studies was assessed with an adapted version of the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies questionnaire. A total of 80 articles were read full text, and 41 studies were considered eligible for inclusion, reporting on 37 different hemostasis biomarkers. No single biomarker appeared to be effective in predicting poor clinical outcome in acute ischemic stroke patients. Conclusions- Based on current literature, no clear recommendations can be provided on which hemostasis biomarkers are a predictor of clinical outcome after acute ischemic stroke. However, some biomarkers show promising results and need to be further investigated and validated in large populations with clear defined study designs.

Indexed as

HemostasisAcute DiseaseAntibodies, AntiphospholipidBiomarkersBlood ProteinsBrain Damage, ChronicBrain IschemiaCase-Control StudiesClinical Trials as TopicCohort StudiesDisability EvaluationHumansLupus Coagulation InhibitorPrognosisReproducibility of ResultsTreatment OutcomeAntibodies, AntiphospholipidBiomarkersBlood ProteinsLupus Coagulation Inhibitorbiomarkersbrain ischemichemostasisprognosissystematic review

Identifiers

PMID30700129
PMCPMC6392207

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.