4.6 Review

NT-proBNP Concentrations in the Umbilical Cord and Serum of Term Neonates: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

期刊

DIAGNOSTICS
卷 12, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12061416

关键词

biomarker; neonate; Nt-proBnp; serum; umbilical cord

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study detected and analyzed the levels of NT-proBNP in umbilical cord blood samples and serum samples from healthy term neonates during the neonatal period. The results showed that the concentration of NT-proBNP was higher in the serum samples compared to the umbilical cord blood samples. Furthermore, the potential effect of perinatal factors on the reference range of this biomarker needs to be further investigated.
The detection of NT-proBNP levels both in umbilical cord blood (UCB) samples and in serum samples collected from healthy term neonates during the neonatal period. A systematic review of relevant literature in accordance with PRISMA guidelines was conducted. For quality appraisal, the potential risk of bias was assessed using the BIOCROSS evaluation tool. The random-effects and fixed-effects models were used to calculate weighted mean differences with a corresponding 95% confidence interval. A total of forty (40) studies met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. After further examination, eighteen (18) studies (1738 participants) from the UCB sample group and fourteen (14) studies (393 participants) from the serum sample group were selected to perform a metaanalysis. Using the fixed-effects model, the mean intervals of NT-proBNP in UCB and serum samples were 492 pg/mL (95% CI: 480-503 pg/mL) and 1341 pg/mL (95% CI: 1286-1397 pg/mL), respectively. A higher concentration of NT-proBNP was observed in the serum sample group compared to the UCB samples (p < 0.001). We present the intervals of NT-proBNP in UCB and in the serum of healthy term neonates. The determination of the potential effect of perinatal factors on the biomarker's reference range was also aimed.

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

4.6
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