ReviewJRSM cardiovascular disease
Pro-adrenomedullin as a prognostic biomarker in patients with heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in JRSM cardiovascular disease. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Novel blood biomarkers for heart failure mortality: mechanistic pathways, aging biology, and risk stratification.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 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
Pro-adrenomedullin (proADM) involved in cardiovascular hemostasis, has shown promise as a prognostic biomarker in heart failure (HF). However, it's precise role in predicting HF outcomes has yet to be defined. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether proADM can effectively predict outcomes in patients with HF. We systemtically searched Pubmed, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Scopus for studies on proADM levels in adults (≥18 years) diagnosed with HF. Cohort studies, case-control studies, and randomized controlled trials were considered. The primary outcomes were mortality and hospitalization, with the risk of bias assessed using the QUIPs tool. A random effects meta-analysis was conducted to report pooled hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals. Our search identified 956 studies, of which 25 met the inclusion criteria after full-text screening, encompassing a total of 13,915 patients. ProADM emerged as a robust predictor of mortality (HR = 2.46, 95% CI [2.02-3.01]) and combined mortality/hospitalization (HR = 2.96, 95% CI [2.17-4.04]). Notably, each 1-log-unit (nmol/L) increase in proADM was associated with a 196% higher risk of mortality or hospitalization and a 146% higher risk of mortality. ProADM shows significant potential as a prognostic biomarker for HF, with elevated levels linked to a higher risk of mortality and hospitalization. Future research should focus on integrating proADM into risk assessment tools for predicting worsening HF events, as this could influence management guidelines and reshape our approach to treating HF patients.
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.