ReviewJournal of circulating biomarkers
Biomarkers and their association with cognitive impairment in patients with chronic heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Journal of circulating biomarkers. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The aim was to synthesize the evidence on the association between circulating biomarkers and Cognitive Impairment (CI) in patients with Chronic Heart Failure (CHF), and to assess methodological quality and certainty of evidence. Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis conducted under PRISMA 2020 (PROSPERO CRD42024626152). Searches were performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase up to April 30, 2025. Observational studies and clinical trials that measured cardiac or extracardiac biomarkers in patients with HF and evaluated CI using validated tools were included. Mean differences (MD) were calculated using random-effects models (DerSimonian-Laird). Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and certainty of evidence with the GRADE approach. Results: Seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Patients with CHF and CI had significantly higher levels of high-sensitivity troponin T (hs-cTnT) compared to those without CI (MD 3.36 ng/L; 95% CI 0.42-6.31; p = 0.03; I² = 0%). In contrast, NT-proBNP showed a non-significant trend (MD 410.16 pg/mL; 95% CI -276.22-1096.53; p = 0.24; I² = 51%). Methodological quality was moderate (median NOS 7/9). Extracardiac biomarkers such as GDF-15, S100B, pTau, NfL, BDNF, and sICAM-1/sVCAM-1 were associated with inflammation, endothelial dysfunction, and neurodegeneration. With GRADE, overall certainty was very low for both biomarkers due to observational design, imprecision, and heterogeneity. Conclusions: hs-cTnT is consistently associated with CI in HF, whereas NT-proBNP does not show a robust relationship. Extracardiac biomarkers may provide complementary information in cognitive stratification, although their clinical application requires validation in multicenter longitudinal cohorts with analytical and neuropsychological standardization.
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.