Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39528275›Full record

SynthesiseNeuro2024

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Assessing the Accuracy of Blood Biomarkers for the Diagnosis of Ischemic Stroke in Adult and Elderly Populations.

Suebsarn Ruksakulpiwat, Wendie Zhou, Lalipat Phianhasin, Chitchanok Benjasirisan, Tingyu Su, Heba M Aldossary, Aaron Kudlowitz, Abhilash K Challa, Jingshu Li, Kulsatree Praditukrit

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in eNeuro, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Suebsarn RuksakulpiwatDepartment of Medical Nursing, Faculty of Nursing, Mahidol University, Bangkok 10700, Thailand suebsarn25@gmail.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2168-5195
Wendie ZhouSchool of Nursing, Peking University, Beijing 100191, China.
Lalipat PhianhasinDepartment of Medical Nursing, Faculty of Nursing, Mahidol University, Bangkok 10700, Thailand.
Chitchanok BenjasirisanDepartment of Medical Nursing, Faculty of Nursing, Mahidol University, Bangkok 10700, Thailand.
Tingyu SuThe Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia.
Heba M AldossaryDepartment of Nursing, Prince Sultan Military College of Health Sciences, Dhahran 34313, Saudi Arabia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8842-6169
Aaron KudlowitzThe College of Arts and Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio 44106.
Abhilash K ChallaRocky Vista University College of Osteopathic Medicine, Ivins, Utah 84738.
Jingshu LiHemodialysis Center, Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin 150086, China.
Kulsatree PraditukritDepartment of Neurology, SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University, Brooklyn, New York 11203.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7044-1114

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aims to elucidate the methodology and compare the accuracy of different blood biomarkers for diagnosing ischemic stroke (IS). We reviewed 29 articles retrieved from PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and CINAHL Plus with Full Text. Among these, 23 articles involving 3,494 participants were suitable for meta-analysis. The pooled area under the curve (AUC) of all studies for meta-analysis was 0.89. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.76 (0.74-0.78) and 0.84 (0.83-0.86), respectively. Blood biomarkers from noninpatient settings demonstrated better diagnostic performance than those in inpatient settings (AUC 0.91 vs 0.88). Smaller sample sizes (<100) showed better performance than larger ones (≥100; AUC 0.92 vs 0.86). Blood biomarkers from acute IS (AIS) patients showed higher diagnostic values than those from IS and other stroke types (AUC 0.91 vs 0.87). The diagnostic performance of multiple blood biomarkers was superior to that of a single biomarker (AUC 0.91 vs 0.88). The diagnostic value of blood biomarkers from Caucasians was higher than that from Asians and Africans (AUC 0.90 vs 0.89, 0.75). Blood biomarkers from those with comorbidities (AUC 0.92) showed a better diagnostic performance than those not reporting comorbidities (AUC 0.84). All the subgroups analyzed, including setting, sample size, target IS population, blood biomarker profiling, ethnicity, and comorbidities could lead to heterogeneity. Blood biomarkers have demonstrated sufficient diagnostic accuracy for diagnosing IS and hold promise for integration into routine clinical practice. However, further research is recommended to refine the optimal model for utilizing blood biomarkers in IS diagnosis.

Indexed as

BiomarkersIschemic StrokeAdultAgedHumansSensitivity and SpecificityBiomarkersblood biomarkerdiagnostic testischemic strokemeta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID39528275
PMCPMC11575121

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.