ArticleHeliyon2024
Diagnostic accuracy of the lactate stress test for detecting mitochondrial disorders: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic and Prognostic Accuracy of Cardiorespiratory Fitness for Detecting Cardiovascular Risk and Mitochondrial Disorders: An Overview of Systematic Reviews with Meta-Analyses.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Pooled it
- Correlation of MLASA2 Clinical Phenotype and Survival with Mt-TyrRS Protein Damage: Linking Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis and 3D Hotspot Mapping.Current issues in molecular biology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Due to their variable phenotypes, mitochondrial disorders (MDs) can be difficult to diagnose. The absolute load lactate stress test (LSTA) and the relative load lactate stress test (LSTR) have been shown to be useful screening tools for the detection of MDs. In this study, we aimed to perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of these tests in detecting MDs. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (no. CRD42022331710). We performed a comprehensive search of PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus from January 10th, 2022 to July 27th, 2022 and included case-control and cohort diagnostic studies that targeted participants with MDs and used LSTA and/or LSTR as index tests. Two reviewers worked separately to compile information from selected articles. Risk of bias and applicability were assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Sensitivity and specificity, as well as diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated using Meta-DiSc 2.0 and Stata software. The analysis included 14 studies with a total of 1064 participants, divided into six studies with 793 participants for LSTA and eight studies with 271 participants for LSTR. For LSTA the meta-analysis gave a pooled sensitivity of 0.67 (95 % CI 0.62, 0.72), a specificity of 0.93 (95 % CI 0.85, 0.97), DOR of 26.63 (95 % CI 10.99, 64.52), and AUC of 0.70 (95 % CI 0.66, 0.74). For LSTR, the pooled sensitivity was 0.52 (95 % CI 0.33, 0.70), specificity 0.94 (95 % CI 0.79, 0.99), DOR 18.14 (95 % CI 2.99, 109.85), and the AUC 0.80 (95 % CI 0.76, 0.83). LSTA and LSTR showed as screening tests moderate sensitivity and high specificity for MD diagnosis, particularly for LSTR. The choice of test may depend on the patient's individual aerobic capacity and motor skills and the availability of equipment.
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.