ICU sedation, delirium & recovery
Biomarkers for intensive care unit-acquired weakness: a systematic review for prediction, diagnosis and prognosis
Authors' conclusion
While ten biomarkers exhibit potential for ICU-AW assessment, their clinical utility remains inconsistent.
Study context
- Population
- Critically ill patients with or at risk of ICU-acquired weakness (intensive care unit-acquired weakness (ICU-AW))
- Participants
- 1,176 patients · 11 studies
- Outcome
- Predictive, diagnostic and prognostic accuracy of biomarkers for ICU-AW
Methodological detailsSearch of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP and SinoMed from inception to January 23, 2025, Quality assessed with revised Newcastle-Ottawa scale and QUADAS-2
- Search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP and SinoMed from inception to January 23, 2025
- Quality assessed with revised Newcastle-Ottawa scale and QUADAS-2
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
Biomarkers identified (5 mechanisms: muscle injury, metabolic, neurological injury, stress response, inflammatory)
10
Biomarkers with strong predictive and diagnostic accuracy, AUC >0.80
6
Growth differentiation factor-15: excellent utility across diagnostic, predictive and prognostic applications, AUC
≥ 0.85
Remaining biomarkers with moderate performance (AUC 0.60 to 0.80)
4
Original publication
Biomarkers for intensive care unit-acquired weakness: a systematic review for prediction, diagnosis and prognosis. Ann Intensive Care. Published 2 July 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →