SynthesisMolecular diagnosis & therapy2024
Acute Fluid Biomarkers for Diagnosis and Prognosis in Children with Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Molecular diagnosis & therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating NfL and NTproBNP as predictive biomarkers of intracranial injuries after mild traumatic brain injury in children presenting to emergency departments.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- Diagnostic potential of IL6 and other blood-based inflammatory biomarkers in mild traumatic brain injury among children.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
- Management of Pediatric Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Patients: S100b, Glial Fibrillary Acidic Protein, and Heart Fatty-Acid-Binding Protein Promising Biomarkers.Neurotrauma reports · 2024Article
- Neurovascular unit, neuroinflammation and neurodegeneration markers in brain disorders.Frontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveFluid biomarkers have the potential to improve the accuracy of diagnosis and prognosis in children with mild traumatic brain injury. Our primary objective was to assess the diagnostic and prognostic utility of acute blood and fluid biomarkers in children with mild traumatic brain injury.
methodsWe performed a systematic review of the published literature in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology. Fluid biomarker studies assessing pediatric mild traumatic brain injury diagnosis or prognosis were included if blood or fluids were sampled within 24 h of injury.
resultsThirty-two studies involving 4743 patients were included comprising 25 diagnostic studies and ten prognostic studies with three studies assessing both diagnosis and prognosis. Sixteen of the 25 diagnostic studies reported the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for predicting abnormal computed tomography scans of the head; S100 calcium binding protein B (S100B, N = 6 studies, AUC range 0.67-1.00), glial fibrillary acidic protein (N = 5, AUC range 0.41-0.85), ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase (N = 3, AUC 0.59 and 0.83), neuron specific enolase (N = 1, AUC 0.99), total tau (N = 1, AUC 0.65), and interleukin-6 (N = 1, AUC 0.61). In four of the ten prognostic studies, increased acute serum S100B levels, tumor necrosis factor-α, or interleukin-8 were associated with post-concussive symptoms or fatigue from 3 to 12 months post-injury.
conclusionsThe largest amount of evidence supported the potential use of S100B, glial fibrillary acidic protein, and UCH-L1, but there was mixed accuracy for diagnosis and prognostication for all biomarkers in pediatric mTBI.
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.