ArticleEndocrine2024
Comparison of four confirmatory tests for the diagnosis of primary aldosteronism: Bayesian analysis in the absence of a gold standard.
Article in Endocrine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of different criteria of captopril challenge test for the diagnosis of primary aldosteronism.Endocrine · 2025Article
- Discordance and shortcomings of aldosterone suppression tests in primary aldosteronism.European journal of endocrinology · 2025Article
- ACE Inhibition to Distinguish Low-Renin Hypertension From Primary Aldosteronism.Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCaptopril challenge test (CCT), seated saline infusion test (SSIT), oral sodium loading test (OSLT) and fludrocortisone suppression test (FST) are widely used diagnostic tests for primary aldosteronism (PA). These tests differ in terms of safety and complexity. Whether the simpler tests (CCT and SSIT) are comparable in diagnostic performance to the more complex ones (FST and OSLT) is unclear. PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of the four tests.
methodsThis is a retrospective study of hypertensive patients who were screened for PA and completed at least one confirmatory test. The patients were divided into two cohorts: one including those who completed one to three tests was used for the estimation of sensitivity and specificity. The other including those who completed four tests was used for the comparison of accuracy. Bayesian method was used to obtain the sensitivity, specificity, and Youden index of each test.
resultsThe study included 1011 hypertensive patients. Among them, 895 patients completed one to three tests (including 889 CCT, 605 FST, 611 SSIT and 69 OSLT), and 116 patients completed four tests. SSIT had the highest sensitivity of 0.82(95% CI 0.78-0.86) but the lowest specificity of 0.76(0.70-0.80). OSLT had the lowest sensitivity of 0.65(0.56-0.75) but the highest specificity of 0.91(0.82-0.96). The sensitivity and specificity were 0.78 (95% CI, 0.75-0.82), 0.82 (95% CI, 0.78-0.85), for CCT, and 0.77 (95% CI, 0.73-0.81), 0.87 (95% CI, 0.82-0.91) for FST, respectively. The Youden index was not significantly different among the four tests[0.60(0.55-0.65) for CCT; 0.58(0.51-0.64) for SSIT; (0.64(0.57-0.69) for FST; 0.56(0.43-0.67) for OSLT].
conclusionThe accuracy of simpler tests is comparable to the more complex ones. Considering the safety and simplicity of CCT, it may be a reasonable first choice when confirming the diagnosis of PA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39009922What 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.