ArticleBMC pulmonary medicine2022
Diagnostic accuracy of adropin as a preliminary test to exclude acute pulmonary embolism: a prospective study.
Article in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Unveiling the multifaceted role of adropin in various diseases (Review).International journal of molecular medicine · 2024Review
- Review of Medical Studies on COVID-19 During the Pandemic Period.The Eurasian journal of medicine · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of adropin as a biomarker to exclude the diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism (PE).
methodsPatients admitted to the emergency department of a tertiary health centre between August 2019 and August 2020 and diagnosed with PE were included in this prospective cohort study. The amount of serum adropin was determined in patients with (PE) and compared with that of healthy volunteers. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed with the obtained data, and the area under the curve (AUC) with a 95% confidence interval was determined. The parameters of diagnostic accuracy for PE were determined.
resultsA total of 57 participants were included in the study (28 controls and 29 PE patients). The mean adropin level in the PE group was 187.33 ± 62.40 pg/ml, which was significantly lower than that in the control group (524.06 ± 421.68 pg/ml) (p < 0.001). When the optimal adropin cut-off value was 213.78 pg/ml, the likelihood ratio of the adropin test was 3.4, and the sensitivity of the adropin test at this value was 82% with specificity of 75% (95% CI; AUC: 0.821).
conclusionOur results suggest that adropin may be considered for further study as a candidate marker for the exclusion of the diagnosis of PE. However, more research is required to verify and support the generalizability of our study results.
Indexed as
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.