4.7 Review

Biosensors for Detection of Biochemical Markers Relevant to Osteoarthritis

期刊

BIOSENSORS-BASEL
卷 11, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/bios11020031

关键词

osteoarthritis; biosensor; biomarker; ELISA; COMP; immunosensor; arthritis; cartilage; CTX-II

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This systematic review evaluates the advantages of biosensors in the early diagnosis of osteoarthritis, showing that biosensors can detect biomarkers with high accuracy and low costs. However, due to a lack of data and low levels of evidence, significant results could not be found, indicating the need for further high-quality studies to confirm the findings.
This systematic review aimed to assess the advantages of biosensors in detecting biomarkers for the early diagnosis of osteoarthritis (OA). OA is the most prevalent musculoskeletal disease and is a leading cause of disability and pain worldwide. The diagnosis of OA could be performed through clinical examinations and imaging only during the late stages of the disease. Biomarkers could be used for the diagnosis of the disease in the very early stages. Biosensors could detect biomarkers with high accuracy and low costs. This paper focuses on the biosensors mainly adopted to detect OA markers (electrochemical, optical, Quartz crystal microbalance, molecular and wearable biosensors). A comprehensive search on PubMed, Cochrane, CINAHL and Embase databases was conducted from the inception to November 2020. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to improve the reporting of the review. The Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) was used for quality assessment. From a total amount of 1086 studies identified, only 19 articles were eligible for this study. The main advantages of the biosensors reported were accuracy, limited cost and ease of use, compared to traditional methods (ELISA). Otherwise, due to the lack of data and the low level of evidence of the papers included, it was impossible to find significant results. Therefore, further high-quality studies are required.

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