We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Diagnostic value of novel biomarkers for heart failure : A meta-analysis.
Herz 2020 Februrary
BACKGROUND: The present meta-analysis examined the diagnostic value of novel biomarkers for heart failure (HF), including copeptin, galectin-3, hs-cTnT, MR-proANP, MR-proADM, and ST2.
METHODS: English (EMBASE, Cochrane, and PubMed) and Chinese (Wanfang data, CNKI, SinoMed) databases were searched to identify suitable studies that were published before 1 December 2016. Data were extracted using standard forms. Pooled diagnostic statistics were calculated using DerSimonian-Laird random-effects models.
RESULTS: The analysis comprised 45 studies. The pooled sensitivities of all biomarkers were 0.80-0.86, along with pooled specificities of 0.60-0.82, positive predictive values (PPVs) of 0.52-0.80, and negative predictive values (NPVs) of 0.70-0.87. Among them, hs-cTnT had the highest sensitivity (0.86 [95% CI: 0.84-0.88]), specificity (0.82 [95% CI: 0.79-0.84]), PPV (0.80 [95% CI: 0.77-0.83]), and NPV (0.87 [95% CI: 0.85-0.89]), while MR-proADM had the lowest sensitivity (0.80 [95% CI: 0.75-0.84]), specificity (0.60 [95% CI: 0.56-0.64]), and PPV (0.52 [95% CI: 0.47-0.56]). Copeptin had the lowest NPV (0.70 [95% CI: 0.66-0.74]). The positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of all biomarkers ranged from 1.97 to 3.21, and the negative likelihood ratio (LR-) from 0.20 to 0.36. MR-proADM had the lowest LR+ and highest LR-; galectin-3 had the highest LR+ and MR-proANP had the lowest LR-. The area under the curve (AUC) was as low as 0.68 for MR-proADM, while AUCs for the other biomarkers ranged from 0.83 to 0.89.
CONCLUSION: The overall diagnostic accuracy of copeptin, galectin-3, hs-cTnT, MR-proANP, and ST2 was relatively good. MR-proADM had a poor capacity to confirm or exclude HF. Improving the diagnostic accuracy of HF by a combination of biomarkers could be considered in the future.
METHODS: English (EMBASE, Cochrane, and PubMed) and Chinese (Wanfang data, CNKI, SinoMed) databases were searched to identify suitable studies that were published before 1 December 2016. Data were extracted using standard forms. Pooled diagnostic statistics were calculated using DerSimonian-Laird random-effects models.
RESULTS: The analysis comprised 45 studies. The pooled sensitivities of all biomarkers were 0.80-0.86, along with pooled specificities of 0.60-0.82, positive predictive values (PPVs) of 0.52-0.80, and negative predictive values (NPVs) of 0.70-0.87. Among them, hs-cTnT had the highest sensitivity (0.86 [95% CI: 0.84-0.88]), specificity (0.82 [95% CI: 0.79-0.84]), PPV (0.80 [95% CI: 0.77-0.83]), and NPV (0.87 [95% CI: 0.85-0.89]), while MR-proADM had the lowest sensitivity (0.80 [95% CI: 0.75-0.84]), specificity (0.60 [95% CI: 0.56-0.64]), and PPV (0.52 [95% CI: 0.47-0.56]). Copeptin had the lowest NPV (0.70 [95% CI: 0.66-0.74]). The positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of all biomarkers ranged from 1.97 to 3.21, and the negative likelihood ratio (LR-) from 0.20 to 0.36. MR-proADM had the lowest LR+ and highest LR-; galectin-3 had the highest LR+ and MR-proANP had the lowest LR-. The area under the curve (AUC) was as low as 0.68 for MR-proADM, while AUCs for the other biomarkers ranged from 0.83 to 0.89.
CONCLUSION: The overall diagnostic accuracy of copeptin, galectin-3, hs-cTnT, MR-proANP, and ST2 was relatively good. MR-proADM had a poor capacity to confirm or exclude HF. Improving the diagnostic accuracy of HF by a combination of biomarkers could be considered in the future.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app