ReviewAtherosclerosis plus2022
Association of growth differentiation factor-15 level with adverse outcomes in patients with stable coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis.
Review in Atherosclerosis plus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association of growth differentiation factor-15 with renal disease outcomes and all-cause death in type 1 and type 2 diabetic patients: a meta-analysis.BMC nephrology · 2025Pooled it
- Growth Differentiation Factor-15 as an Emerging Biomarker in Cardiology: Diagnostic and Prognostic Implications.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Inflammatory and vascular biomarkers as predictors of all-cause death and cardiovascular outcomes in an Australian community-based cohort.Physiological reports · 2025Article
- GDF-15 is a potential candidate biomarker for an elevated risk of cardiotoxicity in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant dual anti-HER2 therapy.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and aims: Studies on the association between growth-differentiation factor-15 (GDF-15) level and adverse outcomes have yielded conflicting results in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD). This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the association of baseline GDF-15 level with adverse outcomes in stable CAD patients. Methods: Two authors independently searched PubMed and Embase databases from inception to May 31, 2021 for available studies that investigated the association of baseline GDF-15 level with all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, or major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in stable CAD patients. Pooled multivariable adjusted hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for the highest vs. the lowest GDF-15 level. Results: Seven studies that involved 28,765 stable CAD patients were identified and analyzed. The meta-analysis showed that the highest GDF-15 level was associated with higher risk of MACEs (HR 1.42; 95% CI 1.29-1.57; Conclusions: Elevated blood GDF-15 level is an independent predictor of MACEs, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality in stable CAD patients. The baseline GDF-15 level may play an important role in the risk stratification of stable CAD patients.
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.