4.4 Review

Circulating MicroRNAs as Biomarkers for Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Systematic Review

Journal

JOURNAL OF STROKE & CEREBROVASCULAR DISEASES
Volume 27, Issue 3, Pages 522-530

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2017.09.058

Keywords

MicroRNAs; biomarkers; strokecerebral infarction; ischemic stroke

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Acute ischemic stroke is a leading cause of death and disability worldwide. Unlike myocardial infarction, there is no current blood test to diagnose acute ischemic stroke. MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are very stable in the blood and have been suggested as potential diagnostic markers. Materials and Methods: This review aimed to systematically assess case-control studies investigating the association of circulating miRNAs with acute ischemic stroke. Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed were searched for studies that examined the association of circulating miRNAs in patients with acute ischemic stroke. Studies meeting specific inclusion and exclusion criteria (such as blood samples obtained within 24 hours of an acute ischemic stroke) were selected for data extraction. Two authors extracted data from the included studies relevant to the study design, the patient characteristics, and the relative miRNA expression. Results: Eight studies were included involving 572 cases and 431 healthy controls. Twenty-two miRNAs (12 upregulated and 10 downregulated) were reported as differentially expressed. Only 1 miRNA, miR-106b, was reported as differentially expressed in at least 2 studies. Significant heterogeneity in the design and methods of the included studies was noted. Conclusions: Differential expression of a large number of miRNAs has been reported early following acute ischemic stroke. More research is required in larger patient populations to further evaluate the diagnostic potential of the reported miRNAs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available