ReviewHealth science reports2026
Circulating IncRNAs and Their Association With Ischemic Stroke Severity and Prognosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Health science reports, 2026. 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.
- Circulating IncRNAs and Their Association With Ischemic Stroke Severity and Prognosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Health science reports · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background and Aims: Stroke is the most significant contributor to morbidity worldwide. Prognostication in stroke patients could lead to better planning and care and, subsequently, better outcomes. Recently, lncRNAs have become a hot topic as biomarkers of different diseases. This study aims to systematically assess the utility of lncRNAs in stroke prognosis. Methods: We systematically searched for relevant articles in Medline (via PubMed interface), EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus databases from their inception to April 6th, 2024. Inclusions were limited to original peer-reviewed papers in English that assessed the correlation between circulating lncRNA levels and stroke severity (all subtypes) and/or prognosis. Completeness of the report was evaluated with the "Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology" (STROBE) checklist, and quality assessment was performed with "Quality in Prognosis Studies" (QUIPS) and "Newcastle Ottawa scale" (NOS) checklists. Results: Of the 1134 unique citations gathered, 60 were assessed in full text for inclusion, and 30 were included in the final analysis. Although our search strategy covered all stroke subtypes, no eligible studies were found for hemorrhagic stroke; thus, only ischemic stroke and TIA populations were included. We included 30 studies in our analysis, which included 3719 patients and 4433 data points. The pooled correlation between circulating lncRNAs and NIHSS was 0.52 (CI95%:0.43-0.60), and circulating lncRNAs and the modified Rankin Scale was 0.49 (CI95%:0.26-0.67). The pooled odds ratio for the mortality prediction was 1.55 (CI 95%:1.26-1.92). Quality assessment of included studies showed that most of the studies had a low risk of bias and high completeness of report. Conclusion: LncRNAs show modest to moderate predictive accuracy in assessing stroke severity and prognosis. While these findings are encouraging, Further research is needed to solidify their utility in stroke care.
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.