ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Cardiac Markers in Pediatric Laboratory Medicine: Critical Review.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. 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.
- Establishing reference intervals for high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T in neonates and infants.Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine · 2026Article
- Neonatal hyperthyroidism with myocardial injury: a case report.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Pediatric heart failure in the era of cardio-immunology: inflammatory-immune context phenotypes, diagnosis, and targeted management.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- The Utility of Troponin in Predicting Cardiac Dysfunction in Pediatric Patients: A Meta-Analysis.Cureus · 2025Review
- Prognostic Value of Caspase-3 and Cardiac Troponin I in Assessing Cardiovascular Risk in Pediatric COVID-19 and Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Article
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
Currently, there are no validated guidelines or recommendations for how to interpret cardiac biomarkers in the pediatric population. The most commonly used cardiac biomarkers are cardiac troponins and natriuretic peptides, but the clinical value of common cardiac biomarkers in pediatric laboratory medicine is restricted due to age- and sex-specific interpretations, and there are no standardized cut-off values. The results from the studies on reference values, as well as results from clinical studies, are difficult to compare with identical studies due to the heterogeneity of subject characteristics (gestational and chronological age, sex, pubertal status, menstrual cycle, exercise), assay characteristics (type of assay, generation of assay, analytical platform used), and experimental protocol characteristics (prospective or retrospective studies, reference population selection, patient population selection, inclusion and exclusion criteria, number of subjects). Future studies need to establish evidence-based cut-offs for specific indications to optimize utilization and standardize the interpretation of common cardiac biomarkers in neonates, children, and adolescents. The aim of this article was to summarize the current analytical and clinical limitations of cardiac troponins and natriuretic peptides in the pediatric population, as informed by the existing published literature.
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.