Cargando…

Diagnostic accuracy of 14‐3‐3 η protein in rheumatoid arthritis: A meta‐analysis

AIM: To evaluate the overall diagnostic performance of 14‐3‐3 η protein in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched to acquire eligible studies. Articles published in English before 20 February 2020 were included. Quality Assessment of Diagno...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wang, Decai, Cui, Yalan, Lei, Huiren, Cao, Ding, Tang, Guoting, Huang, Haiming, Yuan, Ting, Rao, Lizong, Mo, Biwen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7756802/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32909672
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1756-185X.13921
_version_ 1783626620995633152
author Wang, Decai
Cui, Yalan
Lei, Huiren
Cao, Ding
Tang, Guoting
Huang, Haiming
Yuan, Ting
Rao, Lizong
Mo, Biwen
author_facet Wang, Decai
Cui, Yalan
Lei, Huiren
Cao, Ding
Tang, Guoting
Huang, Haiming
Yuan, Ting
Rao, Lizong
Mo, Biwen
author_sort Wang, Decai
collection PubMed
description AIM: To evaluate the overall diagnostic performance of 14‐3‐3 η protein in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched to acquire eligible studies. Articles published in English before 20 February 2020 were included. Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 was used to evaluate the risk of bias and application concern of the included articles. Pooled analysis of diagnostic indicators of 14‐3‐3 η protein for RA was conducted by using a random effects model. Subgroup analysis was used to explore the sources of heterogeneity. Deeks' funnel plot asymmetry test was used to evaluate for the presence of publication bias. RESULTS: A total of 13 studies (1554 positive and 1934 negative participants) were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.73 (95% CI 0.71‐0.75) and 0.88 (95% CI 0.87‐0.90), respectively. The pooled positive/negative likelihood were 5.98 (95% CI 4.39‐8.14) and 0.28 (95% CI 0.21‐0.37), respectively. In addition, the pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 23.48 (95% CI 13.76‐40.08) and the area under curve was 0.9245. The results of subgroup analysis indicated that ethnicity and control group might be the source of heterogeneity. The results of sensitivity analysis were stable. No significant publication bias was found. CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence indicated that 14‐3‐3 η protein has moderate accuracy for the diagnosis of RA.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7756802
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77568022020-12-28 Diagnostic accuracy of 14‐3‐3 η protein in rheumatoid arthritis: A meta‐analysis Wang, Decai Cui, Yalan Lei, Huiren Cao, Ding Tang, Guoting Huang, Haiming Yuan, Ting Rao, Lizong Mo, Biwen Int J Rheum Dis Reviews and Recommendations AIM: To evaluate the overall diagnostic performance of 14‐3‐3 η protein in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched to acquire eligible studies. Articles published in English before 20 February 2020 were included. Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 was used to evaluate the risk of bias and application concern of the included articles. Pooled analysis of diagnostic indicators of 14‐3‐3 η protein for RA was conducted by using a random effects model. Subgroup analysis was used to explore the sources of heterogeneity. Deeks' funnel plot asymmetry test was used to evaluate for the presence of publication bias. RESULTS: A total of 13 studies (1554 positive and 1934 negative participants) were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.73 (95% CI 0.71‐0.75) and 0.88 (95% CI 0.87‐0.90), respectively. The pooled positive/negative likelihood were 5.98 (95% CI 4.39‐8.14) and 0.28 (95% CI 0.21‐0.37), respectively. In addition, the pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 23.48 (95% CI 13.76‐40.08) and the area under curve was 0.9245. The results of subgroup analysis indicated that ethnicity and control group might be the source of heterogeneity. The results of sensitivity analysis were stable. No significant publication bias was found. CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence indicated that 14‐3‐3 η protein has moderate accuracy for the diagnosis of RA. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-09-10 2020-11 /pmc/articles/PMC7756802/ /pubmed/32909672 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1756-185X.13921 Text en © 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Rheumatic Diseases published by Asia Pacific League of Associations for Rheumatology and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Reviews and Recommendations
Wang, Decai
Cui, Yalan
Lei, Huiren
Cao, Ding
Tang, Guoting
Huang, Haiming
Yuan, Ting
Rao, Lizong
Mo, Biwen
Diagnostic accuracy of 14‐3‐3 η protein in rheumatoid arthritis: A meta‐analysis
title Diagnostic accuracy of 14‐3‐3 η protein in rheumatoid arthritis: A meta‐analysis
title_full Diagnostic accuracy of 14‐3‐3 η protein in rheumatoid arthritis: A meta‐analysis
title_fullStr Diagnostic accuracy of 14‐3‐3 η protein in rheumatoid arthritis: A meta‐analysis
title_full_unstemmed Diagnostic accuracy of 14‐3‐3 η protein in rheumatoid arthritis: A meta‐analysis
title_short Diagnostic accuracy of 14‐3‐3 η protein in rheumatoid arthritis: A meta‐analysis
title_sort diagnostic accuracy of 14‐3‐3 η protein in rheumatoid arthritis: a meta‐analysis
topic Reviews and Recommendations
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7756802/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32909672
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1756-185X.13921
work_keys_str_mv AT wangdecai diagnosticaccuracyof1433ēproteininrheumatoidarthritisametaanalysis
AT cuiyalan diagnosticaccuracyof1433ēproteininrheumatoidarthritisametaanalysis
AT leihuiren diagnosticaccuracyof1433ēproteininrheumatoidarthritisametaanalysis
AT caoding diagnosticaccuracyof1433ēproteininrheumatoidarthritisametaanalysis
AT tangguoting diagnosticaccuracyof1433ēproteininrheumatoidarthritisametaanalysis
AT huanghaiming diagnosticaccuracyof1433ēproteininrheumatoidarthritisametaanalysis
AT yuanting diagnosticaccuracyof1433ēproteininrheumatoidarthritisametaanalysis
AT raolizong diagnosticaccuracyof1433ēproteininrheumatoidarthritisametaanalysis
AT mobiwen diagnosticaccuracyof1433ēproteininrheumatoidarthritisametaanalysis