4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Blood Markers for the Prognosis of Ischemic Stroke A Systematic Review

期刊

STROKE
卷 40, 期 5, 页码 E380-E389

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.108.528752

关键词

biomarkers; CRP; fibrinogen; prognostic variables; stroke

资金

  1. Chief Scientist Office [CAF/06/30] Funding Source: Medline
  2. Chief Scientist Office [CAF/06/30] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Purpose-The performance of validated prognostic clinical models in acute ischemic stroke might be improved by addition of data on blood biomarkers. Methods-We searched Medline and EMBASE from 1966 to January 2007 for studies of blood markers in patients with ischemic stroke and an assessment of outcome (death, disability, or handicap). We adopted several strategies to reduce bias. Results-Studies were generally small (median number of subjects, 85; interquartile range, 49 to 184). Few had evidence of a sample size calculation (7 of 82 [9%]) or reported blinding to whether patients had stroke (21 of 82 [26%]). Of the 66 studies reporting a measure of association, 10 did not adjust for age or stroke severity, 14 adjusted for age, 7 adjusted for severity, and 35 adjusted for both; 30% (20 of 66) used a data-dependent threshold to predict good or bad outcome. There was evidence of within-study reporting bias and publication bias. Cardiac markers showed the most consistent association with poor outcome. Conclusions-Blood biomarkers might provide useful information to improve the prediction of outcome after acute ischemic stroke. However, this review showed that many studies were subject to bias. Although some markers had some predictive ability, none of the studies was able to demonstrate that the biomarker added predictive power to a validated clinical model. The clinical usefulness of blood biomarkers for predicting prognosis in the setting of ischemic stroke has yet to be established. (Stroke. 2009; 40: e380-e389.)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据