ReviewERJ open research2021
Systematic review of diagnostic methods for acute respiratory distress syndrome.
Review in ERJ open research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Breath metabolomics for diagnosis of acute respiratory distress syndrome.Critical care (London, England) · 2024Observational
- Octane in exhaled breath to diagnose acute respiratory distress syndrome in invasively ventilated intensive care unit patients.ERJ open research · 2023Article
- Influence Of "Open Lung" Recruitment On Ards In Burn Patients With Inhalation Injury.Annals of burns and fire disasters · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
rationaleAcute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is currently diagnosed by the Berlin definition, which does not include a direct measure of pulmonary oedema, endothelial permeability or pulmonary inflammation. We hypothesised that biomarkers of these processes have good diagnostic accuracy for ARDS.
methodsMedline and Scopus were searched for original diagnostic studies using minimally invasive testing. Primary outcome was the diagnostic accuracy per test and was categorised by control group. The methodological quality was assessed with QUADAS-2 tool. Biomarkers that had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROCC) of >0.75 and were studied with minimal bias against an unselected control group were considered to be promising.
resultsForty-four articles were included. The median AUROCC for all evaluated tests was 0.80 (25th to 75th percentile: 0.72-0.88). The type of control group influenced the diagnostic accuracy (p=0.0095). Higher risk of bias was associated with higher diagnostic accuracy (AUROCC 0.75 for low-bias, 0.77 for intermediate-bias and 0.84 for high-bias studies; p=0.0023). Club cell protein 16 and soluble receptor for advanced glycation end-products in plasma and two panels with biomarkers of oxidative stress in breath showed good diagnostic accuracy in low-bias studies that compared ARDS patients to an unselected intensive care unit (ICU) population.
conclusionThis systematic review revealed only four diagnostic tests fulfilling stringent criteria for a promising biomarker in a low-bias setting. For implementation into the clinical setting, prospective studies in a general unselected ICU population with good methodological quality are needed.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.