4.6 Review

Scoping review of molecular biomarkers associated with fatigue, stress, and depression in stroke survivors: A protocol

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 18, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281238

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The prevalence of stroke is increasing each year, and comorbidities such as anxiety, depression, and fatigue affect a large proportion of stroke survivors. The cause of post-stroke fatigue is unclear, but it is related to stress and depression. It is important to improve diagnosis and find new treatments to improve the quality of life for stroke survivors.
The prevalence of stroke increases each year and while mortality from stroke has decreased, the prevalence of comorbidities such as anxiety, depression and fatigue affects as many as 75% of stroke survivors. The aetiology of post-stroke fatigue is not clear, although it has been shown to be interrelated with comorbidities such as stress and depression. Due to the interconnected nature of these comorbidities, it is important to improve the specificity of diagnosis and identify novel therapeutic targets to improve the quality of life for stroke survivors. The investigation of molecular biomarkers associated with post-stroke stress, fatigue, and depression may shed light on the relationships between comorbidities and also contribute to the development of novel diagnostics and therapies. Several biomarkers have been identified for stress, depression, and fatigue, some of which are specific to stroke survivors. However, there remain several gaps in understanding, particularly in relation to the physiological mechanisms underlying these side effects and molecular biomarkers associated with post-stroke fatigue. The aim of this scoping review protocol is to outline the methodologies that will be used to provide a comprehensive understanding of the current literature on biomarkers associated with post-stroke fatigue, stress, and depression, informing future research questions.

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