2011
DOI: 10.1136/hrt.2011.223404
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Heart-type fatty acid-binding protein in the early diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

1
4
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
1
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…1 We agree with their summary that when used in isolation, H-FABP may not offer a diagnostic advantage over the current troponin standard. However, it should be noted that in five of the included studies constituting 1573 patients (42% of the pooled cohort), no information on symptom duration was available.…”
supporting
confidence: 66%
“…1 We agree with their summary that when used in isolation, H-FABP may not offer a diagnostic advantage over the current troponin standard. However, it should be noted that in five of the included studies constituting 1573 patients (42% of the pooled cohort), no information on symptom duration was available.…”
supporting
confidence: 66%
“…H‐FABP is abundantly expressed in various tissues such as liver, intestine, heart, muscles, adipocytes, brain, testis, and peripheral nervous system. It is responsible for carrying fatty acids into mitochondria for the purposes of beta‐oxidation and energy supply 16 …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…16 Due to lower molecular mass and cytoplasmic nature, H-FABP can be released rapidly into the blood flow following the occurrence of myocardial injury. 16 The diagnostic potential of H-FABP biomarker for myocardial injuries was first discovered in 1988 by Professor Jan Glatz (Maastricht, Netherlands). 17 However, the information on the prognostic value of this biomarker in COPD is quite limited.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The Authors' reply We thank Shand et al for their comments1 on our systematic review and meta-analysis 2…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%