Prognostic Accuracy of Cardiovascular Disease Biomarkers in Patients with COVID-19: A Diagnostic Test Accuracy Meta-Analysis.

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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

1. Cardiac Injury in COVID-19: A Systematic Review of Relevant Meta-Analyses.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2022
   Pooled it
2. Serum human epididymis Protein-4 outperforms conventional biomarkers in the early detection of non-small cell lung cancer.iScience · 2024
   Article
3. Coronavirus disease-2019 and heart: assessment of troponin and cardiovascular comorbidities as prognostic markers in patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease-2019 in a tertiary center in Brazil.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2023
   Article

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as