SynthesisFrontiers in immunology2024
Endostatin as a biomarker of systemic sclerosis: insights from a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in immunology, 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.
- An update on the landscape of collagen bioactive fragments.The FEBS journal · 2026Review
- Article
- Decoding vascular dysfunction in systemic sclerosis: from endothelial damage to clinical implications.Current opinion in rheumatology · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The critical role played by vascular dysfunction and ineffective angiogenesis in the pathophysiology of systemic sclerosis (SSc) suggests that circulating biomarkers reflecting these alterations may be useful in the clinical evaluation of this patient group. We sought to address this issue by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies investigating a such candidate biomarker, endostatin, an endogenous glycoprotein exerting anti-angiogenic effects, in SSc patients and healthy controls. Methods: A literature search was conducted in the electronic databases Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus from inception to 27 May 2024. Risk of bias and certainty of evidence were assessed using the JBI checklist for analytical studies and GRADE, respectively. Results: In 19 eligible studies, circulating endostatin concentrations were significantly higher in SSc patients than controls (standard mean difference, SMD=0.90, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.23, p<0.001; low certainty of evidence). Endostatin concentrations were also significantly higher in SSc patients with digital ulcers than those without (SMD=0.43, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.62, p<0.001; very low certainty of evidence) and in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension than those without (SMD=1.21, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.76, p<0.001; very low certainty of evidence). By contrast, no significant differences were observed between SSc patients with limited vs. diffuse disease and those with different video capillaroscopy patterns. There was limited evidence regarding endostatin concentrations in SSc patients with interstitial lung disease, telangiectasias, and gastrointestinal manifestations. There were no significant associations in meta-regression and subgroup analysis of studies investigating endostatin in SSc patients and controls between the effect size and various patient and study characteristics. Discussion: Therefore, the results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that measuring endostatin can be useful in assessing the presence of SSc and specific complications, i.e., digital ulcers and pulmonary arterial hypertension, in these patients. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42024558174.
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.