Unveiling neurogenic biomarkers for the differentiation between sepsis patients with or without encephalopathy: an updated meta-analysis.

IF 6.3 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Jiyun Hu, Wenchao Li, Shucai Xie, Ya Liao, Tao Chen, Xinrun Wang, Weiping Xia, Fang Huang, Zhaoxin Qian, Lina Zhang
{"title":"Unveiling neurogenic biomarkers for the differentiation between sepsis patients with or without encephalopathy: an updated meta-analysis.","authors":"Jiyun Hu, Wenchao Li, Shucai Xie, Ya Liao, Tao Chen, Xinrun Wang, Weiping Xia, Fang Huang, Zhaoxin Qian, Lina Zhang","doi":"10.1186/s13643-025-02784-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Sepsis-associated encephalopathy (SAE) is characterized by brain dysfunction in the context of sepsis and frequently leads to significant cognitive and neurological impairments, as well as an elevated risk of mortality. Accurate diagnosis of SAE is crucial for the timely initiation of optimal treatment and appropriate patient management. Neurogenic biomarkers hold promise as reliable serum diagnostic tools for the detection and longitudinal monitoring of SAE. This meta-analysis seeks to evaluate the diagnostic and prognostic utility of serum neurogenic biomarkers in patients with SAE.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42023408312) and conformed to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A meta-analysis was conducted to comprehensively and critically evaluate the existing body of evidence regarding the use of serum neurogenic biomarkers: neuron-specific enolase (NSE), ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase-L1 (UCH-L1), Tau, S100 calcium-binding protein β (S100β), and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) for the diagnosis and risk assessment of fatality in SAE. We conducted a systematic search of electronic bibliographic databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane databases, CNKI, CQVIP, and WFSD. The quality and risk of bias of the selected studies were assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. For biomarkers reported in two or more studies, pooled standardized mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Heterogeneity among the included studies was examined using the I<sup>2</sup> statistic and random-effects model was applied owing to large heterogeneity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty-two studies were included in our meta-analysis. The levels of serum neurogenic biomarkers were significantly higher in patients with SAE as compared to septic patients with no-encephalopathy (NE): NSE (standardized mean difference (SMD) 1.98 (95% CI 1.55-2.42), P < 0.00001); UCH-L1 (SMD 1.75 (95% CI 0.90-2.59), P < 0.0001); Tau (SMD 1.14 (95% CI 1.01-1.28), P < 0.00001); S100β (SMD 1.82 (95% CI 1.45-2.19), P < 0.00001); and GFAP (SMD 3.63 (95% CI 1.85-5.41), P < 0.0001). In addition, significantly lower serum neurogenic biomarkers levels were noted in septic patients with survivors as compared to non-survivors: NSE (SMD - 1.87 (95% CI - 2.43 to - 1.32), P < 0.00001); UCH-L1 (SMD - 1. 71 (95% CI - 2.24 to - 1.19), P < 0.00001); Tau (SMD - 0.57 (95% CI - 0.79 to - 0.35), P < 0.00001); S100β (SMD - 1.34 (95% CI - 1.88 to - 0.80), P < 0.00001). However, no significant differences in serum GFAP levels [SMD -7.98 (95% CI - 22.23-6.27), P = 0.27) were found between the surviving and non-surviving groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The increased serum neurogenic biomarkers may be predictive of SAE and mortality for septic patients, which are expected to be applied as a reliable blood-based diagnostic tool for detection and longitudinal monitoring in SAE patients. However, results should be interpreted with caution due to the high heterogeneity among studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":"14 1","pages":"38"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11806563/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-025-02784-5","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Sepsis-associated encephalopathy (SAE) is characterized by brain dysfunction in the context of sepsis and frequently leads to significant cognitive and neurological impairments, as well as an elevated risk of mortality. Accurate diagnosis of SAE is crucial for the timely initiation of optimal treatment and appropriate patient management. Neurogenic biomarkers hold promise as reliable serum diagnostic tools for the detection and longitudinal monitoring of SAE. This meta-analysis seeks to evaluate the diagnostic and prognostic utility of serum neurogenic biomarkers in patients with SAE.

Methods: The study protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42023408312) and conformed to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A meta-analysis was conducted to comprehensively and critically evaluate the existing body of evidence regarding the use of serum neurogenic biomarkers: neuron-specific enolase (NSE), ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase-L1 (UCH-L1), Tau, S100 calcium-binding protein β (S100β), and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) for the diagnosis and risk assessment of fatality in SAE. We conducted a systematic search of electronic bibliographic databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane databases, CNKI, CQVIP, and WFSD. The quality and risk of bias of the selected studies were assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. For biomarkers reported in two or more studies, pooled standardized mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Heterogeneity among the included studies was examined using the I2 statistic and random-effects model was applied owing to large heterogeneity.

Results: Forty-two studies were included in our meta-analysis. The levels of serum neurogenic biomarkers were significantly higher in patients with SAE as compared to septic patients with no-encephalopathy (NE): NSE (standardized mean difference (SMD) 1.98 (95% CI 1.55-2.42), P < 0.00001); UCH-L1 (SMD 1.75 (95% CI 0.90-2.59), P < 0.0001); Tau (SMD 1.14 (95% CI 1.01-1.28), P < 0.00001); S100β (SMD 1.82 (95% CI 1.45-2.19), P < 0.00001); and GFAP (SMD 3.63 (95% CI 1.85-5.41), P < 0.0001). In addition, significantly lower serum neurogenic biomarkers levels were noted in septic patients with survivors as compared to non-survivors: NSE (SMD - 1.87 (95% CI - 2.43 to - 1.32), P < 0.00001); UCH-L1 (SMD - 1. 71 (95% CI - 2.24 to - 1.19), P < 0.00001); Tau (SMD - 0.57 (95% CI - 0.79 to - 0.35), P < 0.00001); S100β (SMD - 1.34 (95% CI - 1.88 to - 0.80), P < 0.00001). However, no significant differences in serum GFAP levels [SMD -7.98 (95% CI - 22.23-6.27), P = 0.27) were found between the surviving and non-surviving groups.

Conclusion: The increased serum neurogenic biomarkers may be predictive of SAE and mortality for septic patients, which are expected to be applied as a reliable blood-based diagnostic tool for detection and longitudinal monitoring in SAE patients. However, results should be interpreted with caution due to the high heterogeneity among studies.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Systematic Reviews
Systematic Reviews Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
241
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: Systematic Reviews encompasses all aspects of the design, conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. The journal publishes high quality systematic review products including systematic review protocols, systematic reviews related to a very broad definition of health, rapid reviews, updates of already completed systematic reviews, and methods research related to the science of systematic reviews, such as decision modelling. At this time Systematic Reviews does not accept reviews of in vitro studies. The journal also aims to ensure that the results of all well-conducted systematic reviews are published, regardless of their outcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信