Wren, J. orcid.org/0000-0002-8358-0607, Goodacre, S. orcid.org/0000-0003-0803-8444, Pandor, A. orcid.org/0000-0003-2552-5260 et al. (7 more authors) (2024) Diagnostic accuracy of alternative biomarkers for acute aortic syndrome: a systematic review. Emergency Medicine Journal, 41 (11). pp. 678-685. ISSN 1472-0205
Abstract
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.
Metadata
Item Type: | Article |
---|---|
Authors/Creators: |
|
Copyright, Publisher and Additional Information: | © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
Keywords: | arterial; cardiovascular system; systematic review |
Dates: |
|
Institution: | The University of Sheffield |
Academic Units: | The University of Sheffield > Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health (Sheffield) > School of Medicine and Population Health |
Funding Information: | Funder Grant number National Institute for Health and Care Research NIHR151853 |
Depositing User: | Symplectic Sheffield |
Date Deposited: | 09 Aug 2024 08:28 |
Last Modified: | 22 Nov 2024 15:21 |
Status: | Published |
Publisher: | BMJ |
Refereed: | Yes |
Identification Number: | 10.1136/emermed-2023-213772 |
Related URLs: | |
Open Archives Initiative ID (OAI ID): | oai:eprints.whiterose.ac.uk:215887 |