4.0 Article

Increased circulating sclerostin levels in rheumatoid arthritis patients: an updated meta-analysis

期刊

ZEITSCHRIFT FUR RHEUMATOLOGIE
卷 82, 期 SUPPL 1, 页码 51-58

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00393-021-01091-3

关键词

Sclerostin; Rheumatoid arthritis; Meta-analysis; Autoimmune disease; Biomarker

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the circulating level of sclerostin in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients and summarized its role. The meta-analysis showed that RA patients had higher circulating sclerostin levels compared to normal controls. Subgroup analyses indicated that age, region, and assay method were associated with sclerostin level in RA patients.
Background Sclerostin, a regulator of bone metabolism and vascular calcification involved in regulating the Wnt/beta-catenin signaling pathway, has been shown to be involved in the pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, current results regarding the circulating sclerostin level of RA patients are debatable. This study aimed to evaluate the circulating level of sclerostin in RA patients and briefly summarize its role. Method PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched till May 27, 2021, for eligible articles. Useful data from all qualified papers were systematically extracted and analyzed using Stata 12.0 software (Stata Corp LP, College Station, TX, USA). Results Overall, 13 qualifying studies including 1030 cases and 561 normal controls were analyzed in this updated meta-analysis. Forest plot of this meta-analysis showed that RA patients had higher circulating sclerostin levels (P < 0.001, standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.916, 95% CI: 0.235-1.597) compared to normal controls. Subgroup analyses implied that age, region, and assay method were associated with sclerostin level in RA patients. Conclusion RA patients have higher circulating sclerostin levels, and these was influenced by age, region, and assay method.

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

4.0
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