Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32585080›Full record

SynthesisAnnals of clinical and translational neurology2020

Accuracy of FGF-21 and GDF-15 for the diagnosis of mitochondrial disorders: A meta-analysis.

Yan Lin, Kunqian Ji, Xiaotian Ma, Shuangwu Liu, Wei Li, Yuying Zhao, Chuanzhu Yan

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Annals of clinical and translational neurology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Yan LinResearch Institute of Neuromuscular and Neurodegenerative Diseases and Department of Neurology, Qilu Hospital, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong, 250000, China.
Kunqian JiResearch Institute of Neuromuscular and Neurodegenerative Diseases and Department of Neurology, Qilu Hospital, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong, 250000, China.
Xiaotian MaMitochondrial Medicine Laboratory, Qilu Hospital (Qingdao), Shandong University, Qingdao, Shandong, 266035, China.
Shuangwu LiuResearch Institute of Neuromuscular and Neurodegenerative Diseases and Department of Neurology, Qilu Hospital, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong, 250000, China.
Wei LiResearch Institute of Neuromuscular and Neurodegenerative Diseases and Department of Neurology, Qilu Hospital, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong, 250000, China.
Yuying ZhaoResearch Institute of Neuromuscular and Neurodegenerative Diseases and Department of Neurology, Qilu Hospital, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong, 250000, China.
Chuanzhu YanResearch Institute of Neuromuscular and Neurodegenerative Diseases and Department of Neurology, Qilu Hospital, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong, 250000, China.ORCID 0000-0002-2191-5184

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveGiven their diverse phenotypes, mitochondrial diseases (MDs) are often difficult to diagnose. Fibroblast growth factor 21 (FGF-21) and growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15) represent promising biomarkers for MD diagnosis. Herein we conducted a meta-analysis to compare their diagnostic accuracy for MDs.

methodsWe comprehensively searched PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, the Web of Science, and Cochrane Library up to 1 January 2020. Data were analyzed by two independent reviewers. We obtained the sensitivity and specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR-), diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves of each diagnostic method.

resultsEight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including 1563 participants (five encompassing 718 FGF-21 assessments; seven encompassing 845 participants for GDF-15) were included. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR and SROC of FGF-21 were 0.71 (95% CI 0.53, 0.84), 0.88(95% CI 0.82, 0.93), 18 (95% CI 6, 54), 0.90 (95% CI 0.87, 0.92), respectively, which were lower than GDF-15 values; 0.83 (95% CI 0.65, 0.92), 0.92 (95% CI 0.84, 0.96), 52 (95% CI 13, 205), 0.94 (95% CI 0.92, 0.96).

interpretationFGF-21 and GDF-15 showed acceptable sensitivity and high specificity. Of the biomarkers, GDF-15 had the highest diagnostic accuracy.

Indexed as

BiomarkersFibroblast Growth FactorsGrowth Differentiation Factor 15HumansMitochondrial DiseasesSensitivity and SpecificityBiomarkersFGF21 protein, humanFibroblast Growth FactorsGDF15 protein, humanGrowth Differentiation Factor 15

Identifiers

PMID32585080
PMCPMC7359119

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.