SynthesisClinical and experimental medicine2024
The potential role of serum amyloid A as biomarker of rheumatic diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Clinical and experimental medicine, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The identification of novel, robust biomarkers for the diagnosis of rheumatic diseases (RDs) and the presence of active disease might facilitate early treatment and the achievement of favourable long-term outcomes. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies investigating the acute phase reactant, serum amyloid A (SAA), in RD patients and healthy controls to appraise its potential as diagnostic biomarker. We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception to 10 April 2024 for relevant studies. We evaluated the risk of bias and the certainty of evidence using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist and GRADE, respectively (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42024537418). In 32 studies selected for analysis, SAA concentrations were significantly higher in RD patients compared to controls (SMD = 1.61, 95% CI 1.24-1.98, p < 0.001) and in RD patients with active disease compared to those in remission (SMD = 2.17, 95% CI 1.21-3.13, p < 0.001). Summary receiving characteristics curve analysis showed a good diagnostic accuracy of SAA for the presence of RDs (area under the curve = 0.81, 95% CI 0.78-0.84). The effect size of the differences in SAA concentrations between RD patients and controls was significantly associated with sex, body mass index, type of RD, and study country. Pending the conduct of prospective studies in different types of RDs, the results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that SAA is a promising biomarker for the diagnosis of RDs and active disease.
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.