ReviewHeliyon2024
Investigating outlier rates of cardiac troponin I and troponin T assays: A systematic review.
Review in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Minimizing bias when using artificial intelligence in critical care medicine.Journal of critical care · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This review aimed to harmoniously summarize and compare outlier rates for various cardiac troponin (cTn) assays, including high-sensitivity-cTn (hs-cTn) assays and contemporary cTn (generation of assays prior to hs-cTn ones) assays, from the published studies. Methods: The PRISMA guidelines were utilized to perform this systematic review. Five databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, were searched using specific keywords up to June 30th, 2023. Studies reporting specifically calculated outlier rates for cTn assays when conducting in-vitro diagnosis in human samples were included. Selected studies were then further assessed using the GRADE tool. Results: Thirteen studies were included. The data from the studies were summarized statistically in this review. The results showed substantial evidence of improved analytical robustness or reduced respective mean rates of outliers, critical outliers, and analytical outliers for hs-cTn assays (0.14 %, 0.18 %, and 0.18 %) compared to contemporary cTn assays (0.63 %, 0.71 %, and 0.50 %). Conclusion: The findings offer promisingly provide a comprehensive reference for laboratory scientists and clinical staff in choosing the most suitable cTn assay for patient care regrading outlier rates. Besides, this review reveals the advancements of hs-cTn assays with lower outlier rates than contemporary cTn assays. The emerging challenges for continuously improving analytical robustness of cTn assays are also elaborated.
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.