Evidence Hub

The diagnosis and prognostic value of plasma copeptin in traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Zhang J, Wang H, Li Y, Zhang H, Liu X, Zhu L, Dong L

Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, 2021

2,654 participants

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this meta-analysis was to assess the diagnosis and prognostic value of plasma copeptin levels after traumatic brain injury (TBI).

METHODS: The databases PubMed, Cochrane Library, OvidSP, Google Scholar, VIP, CNKI, and WFSD were systematically searched from the inception dates to May 9, 2020. The pooled analysis of relevant data was conducted by the RevMan 5.3 software. Subgroups analysis was performed to explore the impact of age, country, male ratio, follow-up time, and Glasgow coma score (GCS) on the pooled area under curve (AUC) values of assessment mortality.

RESULTS: A total of 17 studies involving 2654 participants were included in the current meta-analysis. The pooled results demonstrated that increased plasma copeptin levels were significantly associated with TBI [SMD, 2.44; 95%CI, 1.59 ~ 3.29; P < 0.00001] and also were significantly associated with mortality [SMD, 1.37; 95%CI, 1.16 ~ 1.58; P < 0.00001], and poor functional outcomes (PFO) [SMD, 1.44; 95%CI, 1.20 ~ 1.68; P < 0.00001] in patients with TBI. Furthermore, the copeptin had a significant value in diagnosing brain concussion [AUC, 0.90; 95%CI, 0.84 ~ 0.95; P < 0.00001] and predicting progressive hemorrhagic injury [AUC, 0.83; 95%CI, 0.80 ~ 0.87; P < 0.00001], acute traumatic coagulopathy [AUC, 0.84; 95%CI, 0.79 ~ 0.89; P < 0.00001], mortality [AUC, 0.89; 95%CI, 0.87 ~ 0.92; P < 0.00001], and PFO [AUC, 0.88; 95%CI, 0.84 ~ 0.92; P < 0.00001] in patients with TBI. The subgroup…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 2,654 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free