The predictive value of preoperative natriuretic peptide concentrations in adults undergoing surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Several studies have evaluated preoperative B-type natriuretic peptides (NPs) for predicting mortality after surgery; however, the number of deaths in each study was small, limiting the power of these studies. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies addressing preoperative NP levels to predict mortality after cardiac and noncardiac surgery.

Related collections

Most cited references 43

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

Diagnostic tests 4: likelihood ratios.

Jonathan Deeks, Douglas G. Altman (2004)

0 comments Cited 379 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

Natriuretic peptides.

E. R. Levin, D Gardner, W Samson (1998)

0 comments Cited 308 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Criteria for evaluation of novel markers of cardiovascular risk: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association.

Mark Hlatky, Philip Greenland, Donna K. Arnett … (2009)

There is increasing interest in utilizing novel markers of cardiovascular disease risk, and consequently, there is a need to assess the value of their use. This scientific statement reviews current concepts of risk evaluation and proposes standards for the critical appraisal of risk assessment methods. An adequate evaluation of a novel risk marker requires a sound research design, a representative at-risk population, and an adequate number of outcome events. Studies of a novel marker should report the degree to which it adds to the prognostic information provided by standard risk markers. No single statistical measure provides all the information needed to assess a novel marker, so measures of both discrimination and accuracy should be reported. The clinical value of a marker should be assessed by its effect on patient management and outcomes. In general, a novel risk marker should be evaluated in several phases, including initial proof of concept, prospective validation in independent populations, documentation of incremental information when added to standard risk markers, assessment of effects on patient management and outcomes, and ultimately, cost-effectiveness.