ReviewJournal of inflammation research2026
Biomarkers for Pediatric Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Systematic Review.
Review in Journal of inflammation research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome (PARDS) is a common and severe complication in critically ill children, significantly impacting both short-term and long-term outcomes. Diagnosis currently relies on the Berlin definition; however, the applicability of existing diagnostic criteria across different clinical settings remains challenging, particularly in pediatric populations, hindering early recognition and clinical implementation. Biomarkers have demonstrated potential in PARDS diagnosis, prediction, and prognosis assessment, but a systematic synthesis of existing evidence remains lacking. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, VIP Database, SinoMed, and Scopus from their inception to September 12, 2025. Study quality was assessed using the Revised Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2). Data extraction included study characteristics, biomarker names, research objectives, sample types, sampling time points, biomarker types, PARDS diagnostic criteria, and outcome measures. Results: A total of 4889 publications were screened, with 9 studies of moderate to high quality (score >6) ultimately included, involving 759 critically ill children (median age range: 1.8-14.7 years; 641 [63.8%] male). Nine biomarkers were identified and categorized into four mechanisms: epithelial injury (CC16), stress response (Glypican-4, nucleosomes), inflammatory response (Gal-3BP, miR-424, mirR-21, HBP, PGRN), and endothelial injury (VWF). Six biomarkers demonstrated strong predictive and diagnostic capabilities (AUC > 0.80), while the remaining three showed moderate efficacy (AUC 0.60-0.80). Conclusion: Although the nine biomarkers demonstrate potential in PARDS assessment, their clinical utility remains inconsistent. Future large-scale, multicenter prospective validation studies are needed. Combining advanced technologies to optimize existing biomarkers and explore new candidates will enhance the prediction, diagnosis, and management of PARDS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.