SynthesisBMC anesthesiology2024
Brain natriuretic peptide as a predictive marker of mortality in sepsis: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC anesthesiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- QT interval prolongation and mortality in sepsis: a retrospective cohort study from the MIMIC-IV database.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
- Immune Biomarker Profiling Across Clinical States and Development of a SOFA-Integrated Model for 28-Day Mortality Prediction in Sepsis: A Prospective Cohort Study.Infection and drug resistance · 2026Article
- Machine Learning-Based Prediction of 28-Day Mortality in Patients with Sepsis-Induced Cardiomyopathy: An Integrated Analysis of Inflammatory Biomarkers.Journal of inflammation research · 2026Article
- From cardiac injury to omics signatures: a narrative review on biomarkers in septic cardiomyopathy.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2025Review
- Longitudinal Myocardial Deformation as an Emerging Biomarker for Post-Traumatic Cardiac Dysfunction.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionEarly identification of patients with sepsis at high risk of death remains a challenge, and whether brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) or N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) has a prognostic effect on patients with sepsis is controversial. Here, we clarified the prognostic value of BNP and NT-proBNP and sought to establish suitable cutoff values and intervals.
methodsWe searched five databases to identify studies that met the inclusion criteria. The primary outcomes were the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), area under the curve (AUC), and corresponding 95% credible interval (95% CI) of BNP and NT-proBNP. The secondary outcomes were the sensitivity and specificity of BNP or NT-proBNP in subgroup analyses.
resultsForty-seven studies were included in our meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity of NT-proBNP (0.77 [0.68, 0.84]) was weaker than that of BNP (0.82 [0.76, 0.87]), the pooled specificity of NT-proBNP (0.70 [0.60, 0.77]) was less than that of BNP (0.77 [0.71, 0.82]), and the AUC of BNP (0.87 [0.83-0.89]) was greater than that of NT-proBNP (0.80 (0.76-0.83]). The results of the subgroup analysis showed that the cutoff range of 400-800 pg/mL for BNP had high sensitivity (0.86 [0.74-0.98]) and specificity (0.87 [0.81-0.93]) and was probably the most appropriate cutoff range.
conclusionsElevated levels of BNP and NT-proBNP were significantly related to the mortality of patients with sepsis and had a moderate prognostic value in predicting the mortality of patients with sepsis. In addition, our meta-analysis preliminarily established appropriate cutoff values for BNP and NT-proBNP.
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.