急性主动脉综合征替代生物标志物的诊断准确性:系统综述。

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Emergency Medicine Journal Pub Date : 2024-10-23 DOI:10.1136/emermed-2023-213772
Joshua Wren, Steve Goodacre, Abdullah Pandor, Munira Essat, Mark Clowes, Graham Cooper, Robert Hinchliffe, Matthew J Reed, Steven Thomas, Sarah Wilson
{"title":"急性主动脉综合征替代生物标志物的诊断准确性:系统综述。","authors":"Joshua Wren, Steve Goodacre, Abdullah Pandor, Munira Essat, Mark Clowes, Graham Cooper, Robert Hinchliffe, Matthew J Reed, Steven Thomas, Sarah Wilson","doi":"10.1136/emermed-2023-213772","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>D-dimer is the only biomarker currently recommended in guidelines for the diagnosis of acute aortic syndrome (AAS). We undertook a systematic review to determine whether any alternative biomarkers could be useful in AAS diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library) from inception to February 2024. Diagnostic studies were eligible if they examined biomarkers other than D-dimer for diagnosing AAS compared with a reference standard test in people presenting to the ED with symptoms of AAS. Case-control studies were identified but excluded due to high risk of bias. Selection of studies, data extraction and risk of bias assessments using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool were undertaken independently by at least two reviewers. We used narrative synthesis to summarise the findings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 2017 citations, included 13 cohort studies (n=76-999), and excluded 38 case-control studies. Methodological quality was variable, with most included studies having unclear or high risk of bias and applicability concerns in at least one item of the QUADAS-2 tool. Only two studies reported biomarkers with sensitivity and specificity comparable to D-dimer (ie, >90% and >50%, respectively). Wang <i>et al</i> reported 99.1% sensitivity and 84.9% specificity for soluble ST2; however, these findings conflicted with estimates of 58% sensitivity and 70.8% specificity reported in another study. Chun and Siu reported 95.6% sensitivity and 56.1% specificity for neutrophil count, but this has not been confirmed elsewhere.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There are many potential alternative biomarkers for AAS but few have been evaluated in more than one study, study designs are often weak and reported biomarker accuracy is modest or inconsistent between studies. Alternative biomarkers to D-dimer are not ready for routine clinical use.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>CRD42022252121.</p>","PeriodicalId":11532,"journal":{"name":"Emergency Medicine Journal","volume":" ","pages":"678-685"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11503200/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diagnostic accuracy of alternative biomarkers for acute aortic syndrome: a systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Joshua Wren, Steve Goodacre, Abdullah Pandor, Munira Essat, Mark Clowes, Graham Cooper, Robert Hinchliffe, Matthew J Reed, Steven Thomas, Sarah Wilson\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/emermed-2023-213772\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>D-dimer is the only biomarker currently recommended in guidelines for the diagnosis of acute aortic syndrome (AAS). We undertook a systematic review to determine whether any alternative biomarkers could be useful in AAS diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library) from inception to February 2024. Diagnostic studies were eligible if they examined biomarkers other than D-dimer for diagnosing AAS compared with a reference standard test in people presenting to the ED with symptoms of AAS. Case-control studies were identified but excluded due to high risk of bias. Selection of studies, data extraction and risk of bias assessments using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool were undertaken independently by at least two reviewers. We used narrative synthesis to summarise the findings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 2017 citations, included 13 cohort studies (n=76-999), and excluded 38 case-control studies. Methodological quality was variable, with most included studies having unclear or high risk of bias and applicability concerns in at least one item of the QUADAS-2 tool. Only two studies reported biomarkers with sensitivity and specificity comparable to D-dimer (ie, >90% and >50%, respectively). Wang <i>et al</i> reported 99.1% sensitivity and 84.9% specificity for soluble ST2; however, these findings conflicted with estimates of 58% sensitivity and 70.8% specificity reported in another study. Chun and Siu reported 95.6% sensitivity and 56.1% specificity for neutrophil count, but this has not been confirmed elsewhere.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There are many potential alternative biomarkers for AAS but few have been evaluated in more than one study, study designs are often weak and reported biomarker accuracy is modest or inconsistent between studies. Alternative biomarkers to D-dimer are not ready for routine clinical use.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>CRD42022252121.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11532,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Emergency Medicine Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"678-685\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11503200/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Emergency Medicine Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2023-213772\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emergency Medicine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2023-213772","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:D-二聚体是目前指南中推荐用于诊断急性主动脉综合征(AAS)的唯一生物标志物。我们进行了一项系统性回顾,以确定是否有其他生物标志物可用于急性主动脉综合征的诊断:我们检索了从开始到 2024 年 2 月的电子数据库(包括 MEDLINE、EMBASE 和 Cochrane 图书馆)。诊断性研究中,如果有研究对D-二聚体以外的生物标记物进行了检测,并与有AAS症状的急诊患者的参考标准检测进行了比较,则符合条件。病例对照研究已被确定,但由于偏倚风险较高而被排除在外。研究的筛选、数据提取和使用诊断准确性研究质量评估 2 (QUADAS-2) 工具进行的偏倚风险评估由至少两名审稿人独立完成。我们采用叙事综合法对研究结果进行了总结:我们确定了 2017 篇引文,纳入了 13 项队列研究(n=76-999),排除了 38 项病例对照研究。方法学质量参差不齐,大多数纳入研究的偏倚风险不明确或较高,QUADAS-2工具中至少有一项存在适用性问题。只有两项研究报告的生物标志物的灵敏度和特异性与 D-二聚体相当(即分别>90%和>50%)。Wang 等人报告了可溶性 ST2 99.1% 的灵敏度和 84.9% 的特异性;但这些结果与另一项研究报告的 58% 的灵敏度和 70.8% 的特异性相冲突。Chun和Siu报告中性粒细胞计数的敏感性为95.6%,特异性为56.1%,但这一结果尚未在其他地方得到证实:结论:AAS 的潜在替代生物标志物有很多,但很少有一项以上的研究对其进行过评估,研究设计通常比较薄弱,报告的生物标志物准确性不高,或者不同研究之间的准确性不一致。D-二聚体的替代生物标志物还不能用于常规临床:CRD42022252121。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Diagnostic accuracy of alternative biomarkers for acute aortic syndrome: a systematic review.

Background: D-dimer is the only biomarker currently recommended in guidelines for the diagnosis of acute aortic syndrome (AAS). We undertook a systematic review to determine whether any alternative biomarkers could be useful in AAS diagnosis.

Methods: We searched electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library) from inception to February 2024. Diagnostic studies were eligible if they examined biomarkers other than D-dimer for diagnosing AAS compared with a reference standard test in people presenting to the ED with symptoms of AAS. Case-control studies were identified but excluded due to high risk of bias. Selection of studies, data extraction and risk of bias assessments using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool were undertaken independently by at least two reviewers. We used narrative synthesis to summarise the findings.

Results: We identified 2017 citations, included 13 cohort studies (n=76-999), and excluded 38 case-control studies. Methodological quality was variable, with most included studies having unclear or high risk of bias and applicability concerns in at least one item of the QUADAS-2 tool. Only two studies reported biomarkers with sensitivity and specificity comparable to D-dimer (ie, >90% and >50%, respectively). Wang et al reported 99.1% sensitivity and 84.9% specificity for soluble ST2; however, these findings conflicted with estimates of 58% sensitivity and 70.8% specificity reported in another study. Chun and Siu reported 95.6% sensitivity and 56.1% specificity for neutrophil count, but this has not been confirmed elsewhere.

Conclusion: There are many potential alternative biomarkers for AAS but few have been evaluated in more than one study, study designs are often weak and reported biomarker accuracy is modest or inconsistent between studies. Alternative biomarkers to D-dimer are not ready for routine clinical use.

Prospero registration number: CRD42022252121.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Emergency Medicine Journal
Emergency Medicine Journal 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
6.50%
发文量
262
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Emergency Medicine Journal is a leading international journal reporting developments and advances in emergency medicine and acute care. It has relevance to all specialties involved in the management of emergencies in the hospital and prehospital environment. Each issue contains editorials, reviews, original research, evidence based reviews, letters and more.
期刊最新文献
Best evidence topic report: can intradermal sterile water injections provide effective pain relief in patients with renal colic? Correspondence on 'Four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate versus andexanet alfa for the reversal of traumatic brain injuries' by Sadek et al. Correspondence on 'Four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate versus andexanet alfa for the reversal of traumatic brain injuries' by Sadek et al. Is it time to reframe resuscitation in trauma? Are there differences in low-acuity emergency department visits between culturally and linguistically diverse migrants and people with English-speaking background: a population-based linkage study of adults over 45.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1