Key result
Study-specific NT-proBNP thresholds overestimate prognostic utility for 30-day mortality and MI versus a single threshold.
Why the study?
Does the use of study-specific post hoc diagnostic thresholds overestimate the prognostic utility of preoperative NT-proBNP compared to a single combined threshold in meta-analyses?
Meta-Analysis (n=2,196)
Yes
Does the use of study-specific post hoc diagnostic thresholds overestimate the prognostic utility of preoperative NT-proBNP compared to a single combined threshold in meta-analyses?
Effect estimate: OR 6.45 (95% CI 3.98 to 10.46)
Using study-specific optimal diagnostic thresholds for biomarkers like NT-proBNP artificially inflates their prognostic utility in meta-analyses, highlighting the need for standardized thresholds.
Study-specific NT-proBNP thresholds overestimate preoperative prognostic utility; challenges pooled estimates and supports standardized thresholds in future meta-analyses.
BACKGROUND: N-terminal fragment B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) prognostic utility is commonly determined post hoc by identifying a single optimal discrimination threshold tailored to the individual study population. The authors aimed to determine how using these study-specific post hoc thresholds impacts meta-analysis results. METHODS: The authors conducted a systematic review of studies reporting the ability of preoperative NT-proBNP measurements to predict the composite outcome of all-cause mortality and nonfatal myocardial infarction at 30 days after noncardiac surgery. Individual patient-level data NT-proBNP thresholds were determined using two different methodologies. First, a single combined NT-proBNP threshold was determined for the entire cohort of patients, and a meta-analysis conducted using this single threshold. Second, study-specific thresholds were determined for each individual study, with meta-analysis being conducted using these study-specific thresholds. RESULTS: The authors obtained individual patient data from 14 studies (n = 2,196). Using a single NT-proBNP cohort threshold, the odds ratio (OR) associated with an increased NT-proBNP measurement was 3.43 (95% CI, 2.08 to 5.64). Using individual study-specific thresholds, the OR associated with an increased NT-proBNP measurement was 6.45 (95% CI, 3.98 to 10.46). In smaller studies (<100 patients) a single cohort threshold was associated with an OR of 5.4 (95% CI, 2.27 to 12.84) as compared with an OR of 14.38 (95% CI, 6.08 to 34.01) for study-specific thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: Post hoc identification of study-specific prognostic biomarker thresholds artificially maximizes biomarker predictive power, resulting in an amplification or overestimation during meta-analysis of these results. This effect is accentuated in small studies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Potgieter et al. (2015) conducted a meta-analysis in Patients undergoing noncardiac surgery (n=2,196). Study-specific NT-proBNP thresholds vs. Single combined NT-proBNP cohort threshold was evaluated on Composite outcome of all-cause mortality and nonfatal myocardial infarction at 30 days (OR 6.45, 95% CI 3.98 to 10.46). Using study-specific NT-proBNP thresholds overestimated prognostic utility for 30-day mortality and nonfatal MI (OR 6.45; 95% CI 3.98-10.46) compared to a single cohort threshold (OR 3.43).
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: