Dataset Information

Diagnostic accuracy of novel serological biomarkers to detect acute mesenteric ischemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Laparotomy remains the gold standard for diagnosis of acute mesenteric ischemia (AMI), but is often unhelpful or too late due to non-specific clinical and radiological signs. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the novel serological biomarkers intestinal fatty acid-binding protein (I-FABP), ?-glutathione S-transferase (?-GST), D-lactate, ischemia modified albumin (IMA), and citrulline to detect AMI. A systematic search of electronic databases was performed to identify all published diagnostic accuracy studies on I-FABP, ?-GST, D-lactate, IMA, and citrulline. Articles were selected based on pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Risk of bias and applicability were assessed. Two-by-two contingency tables were constructed to calculate accuracy standards. Summary estimates were computed using random-effects models. The search yielded 1925 papers, 21 were included in the final analysis. Pooled sensitivity and specificity for investigated biomarkers were: I-FABP (Uden); 79.0 (95% CI 66.5-88.5) and 91.3 (87.0-94.6), I-FABP (Osaka); 75.0 (67.9-81.2) and 79.2 (76.2-82.0), D-lactate; 71.7 (58.6-82.5) and 74.2 (69.0-79.0), ?-GST; 67.8 (54.2-79.5) and 84.2 (75.3-90.9), IMA; 94.7 (74.0-99.9) and 86.4 (65.1-97.1), respectively. One study investigated accuracy standards for citrulline: sensitivity 39% and specificity 100%. The novel serological biomarkers I-FABP, ?-GST, IMA, and citrulline may offer improved diagnostic accuracy of acute mesenteric ischemia; however, further research is required to specify threshold values and accuracy standards for different aetiological forms.

SUBMITTER: Treskes N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5559578 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Diagnostic accuracy of novel serological biomarkers to detect acute mesenteric ischemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Treskes Nikki N Persoon Alexandra M AM van Zanten Arthur R H ARH

Internal and emergency medicine 20170506 6

Laparotomy remains the gold standard for diagnosis of acute mesenteric ischemia (AMI), but is often unhelpful or too late due to non-specific clinical and radiological signs. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the novel serological biomarkers intestinal fatty acid-binding protein (I-FABP), α-glutathione S-transferase (α-GST), D-lactate, ischemia modified albumin (IMA), and citrulline to detect AMI. A systematic search of electronic databases was ...[more]

PMID: 28478489

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAcute mesenteric ischaemia (AMI) is a disease with different pathophysiological mechanisms, leading to a life-threatening condition that is difficult to diagnose based solely on clinical signs. Despite widely acknowledged need for biomarkers in diagnosis of AMI, a broad systematic review on all studied biomarkers in different types of AMI is currently lacking. The aim of this study was to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of all potential biomarkers of AMI studied in humans.MethodsA systematic literature search in PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Scopus was conducted in December 2022. Studies assessing potential biomarkers of AMI in (at least 10) adult patients and reporting their diagnostic accuracy were included. Meta-analyses of biomarkers' sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios were conducted. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed, and the study quality was assessed with the QUADAS-2 tool.ResultsSeventy-five studies including a total of 9914 patients assessed 18 different biomarkers in serum/plasma and one in urine (each reported in at least two studies), which were included in meta-analyses. None of the biomarkers reached a conclusive level for accurate prediction. The best predictive value overall (all studies with any type and stage of AMI pooled) was observed for Ischaemia-modified albumin (2 studies, sensitivity 94.7 and specificity 90.5), interleukin-6 (n = 4, 96.3 and 82.6), procalcitonin (n = 6, 80.1 and 86.7), and intestinal fatty acid-binding protein (I-FABP) measured in serum (n = 16, 73.9 and 90.5) or in urine (n = 4, 87.9 and 78.9). In assessment of transmural mesenteric ischaemia, urinary I-FABP (n = 2, 92.3 and 85.2) and D-dimer (n = 3, 87.6 and 83.6) showed moderate predictive value. Overall risk of bias was high, mainly because of selected study populations and unclear timings of the biomarker measurements after onset of symptoms. Combinations of biomarkers were rarely studied, not allowing meta-analyses.ConclusionsNone of the studied biomarkers had sufficient sensitivity and specificity to diagnose AMI, although some biomarkers showed moderate predictive accuracy. Future studies should focus on timing of measurements of biomarkers, distinguishing between early stage and transmural necrosis, and between different types of AMI. Additionally, studies on combinations of biomarkers are warranted. PROSPERO registration: CRD42022379341.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for coronavirus disease-2019 (covid-19).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, bioRxiv, and medRxiv from 1 January to 30 April 2020, using subject headings or subheadings combined with text words for the concepts of covid-19 and serological tests for covid-19.Eligibility criteria and data analysisEligible studies measured sensitivity or specificity, or both of a covid-19 serological test compared with a reference standard of viral culture or reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Studies were excluded with fewer than five participants or samples. Risk of bias was assessed using quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 (QUADAS-2). Pooled sensitivity and specificity were estimated using random effects bivariate meta-analyses.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was overall sensitivity and specificity, stratified by method of serological testing (enzyme linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs), or chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIAs)) and immunoglobulin class (IgG, IgM, or both). Secondary outcomes were stratum specific sensitivity and specificity within subgroups defined by study or participant characteristics, including time since symptom onset.Results5016 references were identified and 40 studies included. 49 risk of bias assessments were carried out (one for each population and method evaluated). High risk of patient selection bias was found in 98% (48/49) of assessments and high or unclear risk of bias from performance or interpretation of the serological test in 73% (36/49). Only 10% (4/40) of studies included outpatients. Only two studies evaluated tests at the point of care. For each method of testing, pooled sensitivity and specificity were not associated with the immunoglobulin class measured. The pooled sensitivity of ELISAs measuring IgG or IgM was 84.3% (95% confidence interval 75.6% to 90.9%), of LFIAs was 66.0% (49.3% to 79.3%), and of CLIAs was 97.8% (46.2% to 100%). In all analyses, pooled sensitivity was lower for LFIAs, the potential point-of-care method. Pooled specificities ranged from 96.6% to 99.7%. Of the samples used for estimating specificity, 83% (10 465/12 547) were from populations tested before the epidemic or not suspected of having covid-19. Among LFIAs, pooled sensitivity of commercial kits (65.0%, 49.0% to 78.2%) was lower than that of non-commercial tests (88.2%, 83.6% to 91.3%). Heterogeneity was seen in all analyses. Sensitivity was higher at least three weeks after symptom onset (ranging from 69.9% to 98.9%) compared with within the first week (from 13.4% to 50.3%).ConclusionHigher quality clinical studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for covid-19 are urgently needed. Currently, available evidence does not support the continued use of existing point-of-care serological tests.Study registrationPROSPERO CRD42020179452.

Project description:Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has a 5-year survival rate below 5%. Carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) is the most commonly used blood-based biomarker for PDAC in current clinical practice, despite having been shown repeatedly to be inaccurate and have poor diagnostic performance. This review aims to assess the reported diagnostic accuracy of all blood-based biomarkers investigated to date in PDAC, by directly comparing individual biomarkers and multi-biomarker panels, both containing CA19-9 and not (novel). A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA standards in July 2020. Individualized search strategies for three academic databases identified 5,885 studies between the years 1973 and 2020. After two rounds of screening, 250 studies were included. Data were extracted and assessed for bias. A multivariate three-level meta-analysis with subgroup moderators was run in R using AUC values as effect size. On the basis of this model, the pooled AUC value for all multi-biomarker panels (AUC = 0.898; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.88-0.91) was significantly higher than all single biomarkers (AUC = 0.803; 95% CI: 0.78-0.83; P < 0.0001). The pooled AUC value for CA19-9 alone was significantly lower compared with the multi-biomarker panels containing CA19-9 (P < 0.0001). For the novel biomarkers, the pooled AUC for single biomarkers was also significantly lower compared with multi-biomarker panels (P < 0.0001). Novel biomarkers that have been repeatedly examined across the literature, such as TIMP-1, CEA, and CA125, are highlighted as promising. These results suggest that CA19-9 may be best used as an addition to a panel of biomarkers rather than alone, and that multi-biomarker panels generate the most robust results in blood-based PDAC diagnosis.SignificanceIn a systematic review and three-level multivariate meta-analysis, it is shown for the first time that blood-based multi-biomarker panels for the diagnosis of PDAC exhibit superior performance in comparison with single biomarkers. CA19-9 is demonstrated to have limited utility alone, and to perform poorly in patient control cohorts of both healthy and benign individuals. Multi-biomarker panels containing CA19-9 produce the best diagnostic performance overall.

Project description:BackgroundSerological testing based on different antibody types are an alternative method being used to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 and has the potential of having higher diagnostic accuracy compared to the current gold standard rRT-PCR. Therefore, the objective of this review was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of IgG and IgM based point-of-care (POC) lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA), chemiluminescence enzyme immunoassay (CLIA), fluorescence enzyme-linked immunoassay (FIA) and ELISA systems that detect SARS-CoV-2 antigens.MethodA systematic literature search was carried out in PubMed, Medline complete and MedRxiv. Studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of serological assays for SARS-CoV-2 were eligible. Study selection and data-extraction were performed by two authors independently. QUADAS-2 checklist tool was used to assess the quality of the studies. The bivariate model and the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve model were performed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the serological tests. Subgroup meta-analysis was performed to explore the heterogeneity.ResultsThe pooled sensitivity for IgG (n = 17), IgM (n = 16) and IgG-IgM (n = 24) based LFIA tests were 0.5856, 0.4637 and 0.6886, respectively compared to rRT-PCR method. The pooled sensitivity for IgG (n = 9) and IgM (n = 10) based CLIA tests were 0.9311 and 0.8516, respectively compared to rRT-PCR. The pooled sensitivity the IgG (n = 10), IgM (n = 11) and IgG-IgM (n = 5) based ELISA tests were 0.8292, 0.8388 and 0.8531 respectively compared to rRT-PCR. All tests displayed high specificities ranging from 0.9693 to 0.9991. Amongst the evaluated tests, IgG based CLIA expressed the highest sensitivity signifying its accurate detection of the largest proportion of infections identified by rRT-PCR. ELISA and CLIA tests performed better in terms of sensitivity compared to LFIA. IgG based tests performed better compared to IgM except for the ELISA.ConclusionsWe report that IgG-IgM based ELISA tests have the best overall diagnostic test accuracy. Moreover, irrespective of the method, a combined IgG/IgM test seems to be a better choice in terms of sensitivity than measuring either antibody type independently. Given the poor performances of the current LFIA devices, there is a need for more research on the development of highly sensitivity and specific POC LFIA that are adequate for most individual patient applications and attractive for large sero-prevalence studies.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020179112.

Project description:Chronic Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) infection is characterised by the persistence of hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg). Expanding HBV diagnosis and treatment programmes into low resource settings will require high quality but inexpensive rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) in addition to laboratory-based enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) to detect HBsAg. The purpose of this review is to assess the clinical accuracy of available diagnostic tests to detect HBsAg to inform recommendations on testing strategies in 2017 WHO hepatitis testing guidelines.The systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using 9 databases. Two reviewers independently extracted data according to a pre-specified plan and evaluated study quality. Meta-analysis was performed. HBsAg diagnostic accuracy of rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) was compared to enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and nucleic-acid test (NAT) reference standards. Subanalyses were performed to determine accuracy among brands, HIV-status and specimen type.Of the 40 studies that met the inclusion criteria, 33 compared RDTs and/or EIAs against EIAs and 7 against NATs as reference standards. Thirty studies assessed diagnostic accuracy of 33 brands of RDTs in 23,716 individuals from 23 countries using EIA as the reference standard. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 90.0% (95% CI: 89.1, 90.8) and 99.5% (95% CI: 99.4, 99.5) respectively, but accuracy varied widely among brands. Accuracy did not differ significantly whether serum, plasma, venous or capillary whole blood was used. Pooled sensitivity of RDTs in 5 studies of HIV-positive persons was lower at 72.3% (95% CI: 67.9, 76.4) compared to that in HIV-negative persons, but specificity remained high. Five studies evaluated 8 EIAs against a chemiluminescence immunoassay reference standard with a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 88.9% (95% CI: 87.0, 90.6) and 98.4% (95% CI: 97.8, 98.8), respectively. Accuracy of both RDTs and EIAs using a NAT reference were generally lower, especially amongst HIV-positive cohorts.HBsAg RDTs have good sensitivity and excellent specificity compared to laboratory immunoassays as a reference standard. Sensitivity of HBsAg RDTs may be lower in HIV infected individuals.

Dataset Information

Diagnostic accuracy of novel serological biomarkers to detect acute mesenteric ischemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Diagnostic accuracy of novel serological biomarkers to detect acute mesenteric ischemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets