| Literature DB >> 35208624 |
Chi Ngai Lo1, Bernard Pui Lam Leung2, Shirley Pui Ching Ngai3.
Abstract
Background andEntities:
Keywords: biomarkers; blood test; rotator cuff disease; systematic review
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35208624 PMCID: PMC8875154 DOI: 10.3390/medicina58020301
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Medicina (Kaunas) ISSN: 1010-660X Impact factor: 2.430
Figure 1Diagnosis of RCD was confirmed by radiological or surgical examination. Exclusion criteria—study populations involving other shoulder pathologies such as fractures, frozen shoulders, and shoulder joint dislocations were excluded. Subjects with other systemic conditions or comorbidities which could affect the outcomes were excluded. In addition, the studies were accompanied by suitable control groups without pathologies in the shoulders or systemic conditions such as inflammatory joint disease, immunological, or neoplastic disorders. All animal studies were excluded. (* Filter by English language, human subjects, and study designs).
Summary of study characteristics and results of included studies.
| Author | Study Design and Level of Evidence | Population and Diagnosis | Biomarkers | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hallgren et al., 2012 | Case-Control | Experimental group | Plasma samples | TIMP-1, median (range) |
| Hudek et al., 2019 | Case-Control | Experimental group | Plasma sample | C16:1n-7 |
| Park et al., 2018 | Cohort study | Experiment group | Serum lipid levels | Experimental group |
| Longo et al., 2009 | Case-control | Experimental group | Venous fasting plasma glucose levels | Experimental group |
| Longo et al., 2010 | Case-control | Experimental group | Serum triglyceride and total cholesterol concentrations | Serum triglycerides |
| Longo et al., 2014 | Case-control | Experimental group | Serum fibrinogen concentration. | Experimental group |
| Papalia et al., 2011 | Case-control | Experimental group | Plasma Nonprotein nitrogen (NPN) and creatinine levels | NPN |
| Savitskaya et al., 2011 | Case-control | Experimental group | Serum samples | Experimental group |
| Kim et al., 2021 | Case-control | Experimental group | Serum sample | Vitamin B12 |
# No exact data of genders and age were provided. Abbreviations: MMP = matrix metalloproteinase, TIMP = tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases, IL = interleukin, LDL = low-density lipoprotein, TG = triglyceride, HDL = high-density lipoprotein, hypo-HDLemia = hypo-high-density lipoproteinemia, VEGF = Vascular endothelial growth factor, and ANG = angiogenin. ELISA = Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. * Results with statistical significance, p < 0.05.
Critical appraisal of included studies. Study Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-sectional studies, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
| Hallgren et al., 2012 | Hudek et al., 2019 | Park et al., 2018 | Longo et al., 2009 | Longo et al., 2010 | Longo et al., 2014 | Papalia et al., 2011 | Savitskaya et al., 2011 | Kim et al., 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Was the research question or objective in this paper clearly stated? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 2. Was the study population clearly specified and defined? | Y | Y | N | Y | N | N | Y | N | Y |
| 3. Was the participation rate of eligible persons at least 50%? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 4. Were all the subjects selected or recruited from the same or similar populations (including the same time period)? Were inclusion and exclusion criteria for being in the study prespecified and applied uniformly to all participants? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y |
| 5. Was a sample size justification, power description, or variance and effect estimates provided? | N | Y | N | N | N | N | Y | N | Y |
| 6. For the analyses in this paper, were the exposure(s) of interest measured prior to the outcome(s) being measured? | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N |
| 7. Was the timeframe sufficient so that one could reasonably expect to see an association between exposure and outcome if it existed? | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N |
| 8. For exposures that can vary in amount or level, did the study examine different levels of the exposure as related to the outcome (e.g., categories of exposure, or exposure measured as continuous variable)? | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| 9. Were the exposure measures (independent variables) clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 10. Was the exposure(s) assessed more than once over time? | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N |
| 11. Were the outcome measures (dependent variables) clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 12. Were the outcome assessors blinded to the exposure status of participants? | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR |
| 13. Was loss to follow-up after baseline 20% or less? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 14. Were key potential confounding variables measured and adjusted statistically for their impact on the relationship between exposure(s) and outcome(s)? | N | N | N | Y | N | N | Y | N | Y |
| Number of “yes” | 7 | 8 | 6 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 9 | 5 | 9 |
Y, yes; N, no; CD, cannot determine; NA, not applicable; NR, not reported.