Diagnostic Value of Soluble Suppression of Tumorigenicity-2 for Heart Failure / 中华医学杂志(英文版)

ABSTRACT

<p><b>BACKGROUND</b>Many studies have explored the diagnostic performance of soluble suppression of tumorigenicity-2 (sST2) for heart failure (HF), but the results are inconsistent. Here, we performed a meta-analysis to assess the role of sST2 in the diagnosis of HF.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang Database from inception to April 2015. Studies that investigated the diagnostic role of sST2 for HF were reviewed. The numbers of true-positive, false-positive, false-negative, and true-negative results were extracted to calculate pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and the summary receiver operating characteristic curve and area under the curve (AUC). The Spearman correlation coefficient was used to check the threshold effect. The Cochran Q statistic (P < 0.05) and the inconsistency index (I2 > 50%) were used to assess the nonthreshold effect. Meta-regression was conducted to explore the source of heterogeneity; subgroup analysis showed the results in different subgroups. Finally, the Deeks' test was performed to assess the publication bias.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>Nine articles including 10 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity was 0.84 (95% CI 0.81-0.86), and pooled specificity was 0.74 (95% CI 0.72-0.76). The summary DOR was 8.49 (95% CI 4.54-15.86), and AUC was 0.81 (standard error 0.03). The Spearman correlation coefficient identified the nonsignificant threshold effect (coefficient = 0.49, P = 0.148), but the nonthreshold effect heterogeneity was significant (Cochran Q = 58.52, P < 0.0001; I2 = 84.6%). Meta-regression found that characteristics of controls might be the suggestive source of nonthreshold effect heterogeneity (P = 0.095). Subgroup analysis found that DOR was 5.65 and 7.86, respectively for the controls of hospital patients and healthy populations. Deeks' test demonstrated that there was no publication bias (P = 0.616).</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>The meta-analysis illustrated that sST2 might play a role in diagnosing HF.</p>