SynthesisBMC cardiovascular disorders2023
Diagnostic biomarkers and aortic dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic accuracy of alternative biomarkers for acute aortic syndrome: a systematic review.Emergency medicine journal : EMJ · 2024Pooled it
- Integrative bioinformatics reveals complement dysregulation: critical insights into C1q, C1r, and C1s in aortic dissection pathogenesis.Molecular genetics and genomics : MGG · 2026Article
- Trends and disparities in aortic dissection mortality in the united states: a retrospective analysis.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
- Proteoglycans as Biomarkers of Medial Degeneration in Acute Stanford Type A Aortic Dissection.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence-driven diagnosis of acute thoracic aortic dissection: integrating imaging, biomarkers, and clinical workflows-a narrative review.Annals of translational medicine · 2025Review
- The Role of Biomarkers and Clinical Prediction Tools in the Diagnosis of Acute Aortic Syndromes: A Literature-Based Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- A Narrative Review of Biomarkers and Imaging in the Diagnosis of Acute Aortic Syndrome.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Acute aortic dissection on CT: is D-dimer determination useful for a timely and correct diagnosis? A case report.International journal of emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Development and Validation of a Diagnostic Model for Stanford Type B Aortic Dissection Based on Proteomic Profiling.Journal of inflammation research · 2025Article
- Early Diagnosis of an Atypical Type A Aortic Dissection With Point-of-Care Ultrasound: A Case Report.Cureus · 2024Article
- The combined use of serum Raman spectroscopy and D dimer testing for the early diagnosis of acute aortic dissection.Heliyon · 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAortic dissection (AD) is a serious and fatal vascular disease. The earlier the condition of AD patients can be assessed precisely, the more scientifically controlled the patient's condition will be. Therefore, timely and accurate diagnosis is significant for AD. Blood biomarker testing as a method of liquid biopsy can improve the diagnostic efficiency of AD. This study conducted a systematic review of the current blood diagnostic biomarkers of AD.
methodsThe PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase electronic databases were systematically searched from inception to January 1, 2023, using the terms "aortic dissection", "serum", "plasma" and "diagnosis". Stata 12.0 software was used to perform Random effects meta-analysis was performed using Stata 12.0 software to determine the effect sizes and corresponding 95% confidence intervals. Then, a summary receiver operator characteristic (SROC) curve was drawn, and the area under the ROC curve (AUC) was calculated.
resultsD-dimer had the best sensitivity and AUC for AD, with values of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.93-0.98) and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.93-0.97), respectively. The sensitivity and AUC values for D-dimer with a cut-off value of 500 ng/mL were 0.97 (95% CI: 0.95-0.99) and 0.94 (95% CI: 0.92-0.96), respectively. In contrast, microRNA had a better specificity value for AD, at 0.79 (95% CI: 0.73-0.83).
conclusionsD-dimer and microRNA have good accuracy in the diagnosis of AD, but the specificity of D-dimer is worse, and studies of microRNA are insufficient. The combination of different biomarkers can improve the diagnostic accuracy. Other blood biomarkers are related to the pathological progression of AD and can be selected according to pathological progress.
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.