ReviewJournal of neurosciences in rural practice
Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing baseline D-dimer level in stroke patients with or without cancer: Strength of current evidence.
Review in Journal of neurosciences in rural practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 7 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: D-dimer levels are increased in stroke and cancer. Cancer patients are at a higher risk of stroke. However, the evidence is unclear if high D-dimer in stroke patients can suggest the diagnosis of concomitant cancer or the development of stroke in a cancer patient. The objective is to assess the evidence available on the baseline D-dimer level in stroke patients with and without cancer. Materials and Methods: We conducted the systematic review and meta-analysis using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines. We searched PUBMED, Cochrane, ScienceDirect, and Scopus for potentially eligible articles published till June 2023. All the review steps were iterative and done independently by two reviewers. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale tool was used to assess the quality of included studies for case control and cohort studies and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality tool for cross-sectional studies. The qualitative synthesis is presented narratively, and quantitative synthesis is shown in the forest plot using the random effects model. I Results: The searches from all the databases yielded 495 articles. After the study selection process, six papers were found eligible for inclusion in the qualitative and quantitative synthesis. In the present systematic review, 2651 patients with ischemic infarcts are included of which 404 (13.97%) patients had active cancer while 2247 (86.02%) did not. The studies included were of high quality and low risk of bias. There were significantly higher baseline D-dimer levels in stroke patients with cancer than in non-cancer patients with a mean difference of 4.84 (3.07-6.60) Conclusion: D-dimer is a simple and relatively non-expensive biomarker that is increased to significant levels in stroke patients, who have cancer and therefore may be a tool to predict through screening for active or occult cancer in stroke 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.