Key result
Soluble ST2 demonstrated diagnostic value for heart failure with a combined sensitivity of 0.72, specificity of 0.65, and a diagnostic odds ratio of 3.63.
Why the study?
The diagnostic performance of sST2 in heart failure had been investigated in multiple studies, but the results were inconsistent.
Does soluble ST2 measurement have diagnostic value in patients with heart failure?
Meta-Analysis (n=8,361)
Does soluble ST2 measurement have diagnostic value in patients with heart failure?
Odds Ratio: 3.63 (95% CI 2.29–5.74)
Soluble ST2 demonstrates moderate diagnostic value for heart failure, with a combined sensitivity of 0.72 and AUC of 0.75, though significant heterogeneity exists among studies.
sST2 offers modest diagnostic accuracy in HF; leaves open its clinical utility pending homogeneous prospective studies.
Objective: The diagnostic performance of soluble suppression of tumorigenicity (sST2) in heart failure (HF) had been investigated in multiple studies, but the results were inconsistent. This meta-analysis evaluated the diagnostic value of sST2 in HF. Methods: Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched until March 2021. Cohort studies or case-control studies relevant to the diagnostic value of sST2 in HF were screened, and true positive (TP), false positive (FP), false negative (FN), and true negative (TN) data were extracted for calculating sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the curve (AUC). The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS), the threshold effect was determined by calculating Spearman correlation coefficients and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve patterns, the heterogeneity was evaluated using the I2 statistic and the Galbraith radial plot, and sensitivity analysis was also performed. Deeks' test was used to assess publication bias. Results: A total of 11 studies from 10 articles were included in this meta-analysis. The Spearman correlation coefficient was 0.114, p = 0.739, and the SROC curve did not show a “shoulder-arm” shape, which suggests that there was no threshold effect, but study heterogeneity existed because of non-threshold effects. The combined sensitivity was 0.72 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.65–0.78], specificity was 0.65 (95% CI: 0.45–0.81), PLR was 1.75 (95% CI: 1.33–2.31), NLR was 0.48 (95% CI: 0.37–0.63), DOR was 3.63 (95% CI: 2.29–5.74), and AUC was 0.75. The Deeks' test suggested no significant publication bias in the included studies (P = 0.94). Conclusion: sST has some diagnostic value in HF, but this should be further evaluated in additional studies with rigorous design and high homogeneity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yang et al. (2021) conducted a meta-analysis in Heart failure (n=8,361). Soluble ST2 (sST2) vs. Patients without heart failure was evaluated on Diagnostic value of sST2 (Diagnostic Odds Ratio) (DOR 3.63, 95% CI 2.29-5.74). Soluble ST2 demonstrated diagnostic value for heart failure with a combined sensitivity of 0.72, specificity of 0.65, and a diagnostic odds ratio of 3.63.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: