ArticleHeliyon2024
Validation of neuron-specific enolase in cardiac arrest patients with limited withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: We validated the prognostic performance of neuron-specific enolase (NSE) according to the recommended values in cardiac arrest (CA) survivors. Methods: We analyzed the data of adult CA survivors who underwent targeted temperature management between January 2014 and December 2020. We measured the NSE level 48 h and 72 h after CA. We performed receiver operating characteristics (ROC) and used the reference value (17 μg/L) and the guidelines-suggested value (60 μg/L) as thresholds. The primary outcome was 6-month neurological outcomes with Cerebral Performance Category (CPC), dichotomized into good (CPC 1 or 2) or poor (CPC 3-5). Results: Of the 513 included patients, 346 (67.4 %) patients had poor neurological outcomes. The area under ROC (AUC) of NSE at 48 h was 0.887 (95 % confidence intervals [CIs], 0.851-0.909) with the Youden index of 35.6 μg/L. A false positive rate (FPR) of <2 % was observed (54.1 μg/L). The thresholds values (17, 60) had a sensitivity of 86.1% and 56.7 % and a specificity of 66.7%and 98.8 %, respectively. The AUC of NSE at 72 h was 0.892 (95 % CIs, 0.849-0.920) with the Youden index of 30.4 μg/L. The threshold values (17, 60) had a sensitivity of 86.0%and 59.4 % with a specificity of 72.2%and 98.3 %, respectively. An FPR of <2 % was observed (53.6 μg/L). Among the 156 patients and 113 patients with NSE at 48 h and at 72 h ≤ 17 μg/L, respectively, 109 and 83 patients had good neurological outcomes. Conclusions: The cut-off value of NSE (60 μg/L) was acceptable to predict poor neurological outcomes with an FPR <2 % in cardiac arrest survivors, irrespective of at 48 or 72 h. NSE (17 μg/L) can function as mitigating factor to deter early WLST.
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.