Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2023 Feb 8;18(2):e0281352. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281352

Biomarkers for prediction of neurological complications after acute Stanford type A aortic dissection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Yi Si 1,2, Weixun Duan 3, Jiangang Xie 1, Chujun Duan 1, Shanshou Liu 1, Qianmei Wang 1, Xiaojun Zhao 1,2, Dan Wu 1, Yifan Wang 1, Lingxiao Wang 1, Junjie Li 1,*
Editor: Eyüp Serhat Çalık4
PMCID: PMC9907800  PMID: 36753509

Abstract

Background

The predictive value of biomarkers such as neuron specific enolase (NSE), S100B, neurofilament (NFL), interleukin-6 (IL-6), coagulation factor R, and D-Dimer (DD) after acute Stanford A type aortic dissection (AAAD) with neurological complications has recently gained much attention from the research community. However, results from these studies are conflicting. This meta-analysis is conducted to assess the relationship between the biomarkers and the risk of neurological complications after AAAD.

Methods

Two reviewers performed a systematic literature search across eight databases (CNKI, Wan Fang, VIP, CBM, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE). The studies regarding biomarkers in AAAD patients published up to February 2022 were included. These studies were subjected to rigorous scrutiny and data extraction to determine the weighted mean difference (WMD) and the 95% confidence interval (CI), which were analyzed using the RevMan 5.4 and Stata software 14.0.

Results

A total of 12 studies including 360 cases with neurological complications and 766 controls were incorporated into our meta-analysis. WMD analysis showed that there was a higher NSE levels in AAAD patients with postoperative neurological complications compared with controls (WMD = 0.640, 95% CI: 0.205 ~ 1.075, P = 0.004 < 0.005), and the level of S100B was related to the 6 h and 24 h postoperative neurological complications (6 h: WMD = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.27 ~ 1.02, P = 0.0007 < 0.001; 24 h: WMD = 0.281, 95% CI: 0.211 ~ 0.351, P < 0.001). Moreover, S100B levels at 6 hours after operation were significantly higher than that at 24 hours (WMD = 0.260, 95% CI: 0.166 ~ 0.354, P < 0.001).

Conclusion

NSE and S100B are both candidate biomarkers to predict postoperative neurological complications in patients with AAAD. Other markers are also valuable when used in conjunction with clinical judgement. The findings accentuate the necessity of further research to establish standardized values for these biomarkers in predicting neurological complications.

Introduction

Acute Stanford A type aortic dissection (AAAD) is a life threatening disease, and surgery is the gold standard treatment. Given the high mortality, it would reach up to 90% in the first 24 hours if left untreated [1, 2]. Total aortic arch replacement is the first choice for saving the patients’ lives in China [3], but the incidence of postoperative neurological impairment remains high around 10%-30% [1]. Even with brain protection technologies, such as hypothermia, cerebral perfusion, drug protection, and blood gas management, the incidence of postoperative neurological injury remains unchanged. Since the mid-1970s, the neurological complications related to aortic arch surgery have been divided into permanent neurological dysfunction (PND) and temporary neurological dysfunction (TPD), with the average incidence rate at 7.3% ~ 12.8% and 8.0% ~ 10.3%, respectively. PND is defined as a focal (embolic stroke) or global (diffuse coma) defect, characterized by sensory or motor disorders or lateralization of focal epileptic activity with corresponding imaging defects and persistent at discharge. TND is defined as a short-term clinical manifestation of short-term global dysfunction or neurocognitive decline (such as confusion, agitation, delirium, coma or myoclonic movement, no localized cerebral neurological symptoms, etc.) and is associated with long-term functional defects and decreased quality of life of patients. In addition, spinal cord nerve deficiency is also an important neurological complication, which seriously affects the patients’ life quality and is life-threatening, bringing huge financial and mental burdens to their families. Therefore, it is of great significance to find out biomarkers for early prediction of postoperative neurological prognosis of AAAD patients. Diagnosis and prediction of postoperative neurological injury can be difficult because high clinical suspicion is required. Inflammatory markers including NSE and S100B have been researched intensively. S100B is an acidic calcium-binding protein isolated by Moore from the bovine brain in 1965. It is mainly distributed in glia and Schwann cells of the central nervous system and peripheral nervous system. When the cells in central nervous system are injured, S100B seeps from the cytosol into the cerebrospinal fluid, and then enters the blood through the damaged blood-brain barrier [4]. NSE is one of the enolases involved in glycolysis pathway. It is a dimer protein found in neural and neuroendocrine tissues. It is widely used as a tumor marker of neuroblastoma and small cell lung cancer. Like S100B, serum NSE contents are very low under normal conditions. When the central nervous system is injured, a large number of NSE is released from the cells and then enters the blood circulation [5]. Therefore, Previous studies have suggested that serum NSE and S100B are potential candidate markers for predicting neurological complications in patients with AAAD [57]. However, a recent study by Zhang k et al. [8] suggested that S100β and NSE levels showed no significant difference at 8-time points within 3 days after the operation. Here, we aimed to explore the biomarkers related to the prognosis of neurological function after AAAD through meta-analysis to provide the evidence-based basis for early clinical prediction and management.

Furthermore, other markers including NFL, IL-6, DD and coagulation factor R were expected to be predictors in some studies. These markers were not investigated sufficiently to meet the standard of meta, thus this study will conduct a systematic review of published studies related to them and evaluate the utility of these clinical investigations.

Methods

We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. The review was registered on the PROSPERO database (PROSPERO ID = CRD4202201770).

Search strategy

A systematic search of publications listed in the databases (CNKI, Wan Fang, VIP, CBM, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and EMBASE) from commencements to February 2022 was conducted using the following search terms: (“aortic dissection” or “acute type A aortic dissection” or “DeBakey type I aortic dissection” or “thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm” or “cardiopulmonary bypass brain injury” or “acute type A aortic dissection” or “open surgical repair” or “aortic arch replacement”) and (“biomarker *” or “neurofilament protein L” or “NSE” or “neuron specific enolase” or “S100B” or “interleukin-6” or “IL-6” or “D-dimer”). All references in the retrieved articles were also scanned to identify other potentially available studies.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The inclusion criteria encompassed the following: (1) cohort study or case-control study; (2) diagnosis of AAAD or related cardiac surgery by CT / MRI, echocardiography, and blood gas analysis, etc.; (3) the definition of neurological complications must be clearly; (4) the mean and standard deviation (SD) of serum biomarkers can be obtained or calculated directly; (5) published by Chinese or English. Studies were excluded based on the following criteria: (1) not a cohort study or case-control study (including animal experiment, in vitro experiment, pharmacoeconomic research, and drug metabolism research); (2) overlapping samples of the same research center; (3) incomplete data information; (4) other types of aortic dissection; (5) the article was a case report, meta-analysis, review, or abstract from the conference.

Data extraction

Based on the inclusion and exclusion standards, two researchers independently reviewed the full text of all included studies and extracted the following relevant information: first author, publication time, region, sample size, biomarkers levels, type of operation, judgment standard, and time of neurological complications prognosis, time of blood draw, specificity, sensitivity, cut-off value, and other observation indexes. The differences between the data extracted by the two researchers were reviewed by the third researcher.

Quality assessment

We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) standard to evaluate the quality of each study [9]. Three aspects were assessed: subject selection, inter-group comparability, and exposure factor measurement. The full NOS score is 9 points, with a score ≥ 6 indicating high quality.

Statistical analysis

RevMan software (version 5.4; Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK) and Stata software (version 14.0; Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA) were used in our article for all data processing and analysis. The primary data extracted in this study were sample size, as well as the mean, median, interquartile range (IQR), and SD of biomarkers concentration. In this study, we extracted the median to represent the mean, and converted the IQR into SD value through Mean Variance Estimation online software. Due to the same measurement units of the concentration of the biomarker in the included studies, the weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were selected as the effective size (ES) for statistical analysis for continuous outcomes. A forest plot was used to show the characteristics of the results of various studies. P < 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference. We used the Q test and I2 statistics to analyze the heterogeneity of the included studies. The fixed-effect model was employed for data combination if P ≥ 0.05 and I2≤ 50%, indicating no statistical heterogeneity between the studies. The random-effect model was adopted if the converse was true. To further investigate the potential influencing factors of heterogeneity, we conducted a subgroup analysis of the study based on surgery type. Furthermore, a sensitivity analysis was carried out to assess the stability of the results. Repeated data analyses were performed, with each done after removing one study at a time. In addition, we also performed a potential publication bias assessed by visual inspection of the funnel plot, an asymmetric plot suggested a possible publication bias would be corrected by the shear compensation method.

Results

Characteristics of eligible studies

A total of 5891 related records were initially retrieved through each database. After screening the titles or abstracts, 5868 studies were excluded because of duplicate data, other types of publications (animal/reviews/editorial/comments/letter), or non-relevant research. The full-length papers of the remaining 23 studies were retrieved and assessed for eligibility. Of the retrieved studies, a total of 12 met our inclusion criteria and were included in our systematic review, 8 were incorporated into our meta-analysis. A PRISMA flow diagram can be seen in (Fig 1). Table 1 and S1 Table provide a summary of the key characteristics and risk assessment of publication bias of the included studies. Table 2 exhibits the cut-off values, sensitivity, specificity, area under the curve (AUC), and other observation indexes for the biomarkers in the 12 included studies.

Fig 1. PRISMA flow diagram depicting study selection algorithm.

Fig 1

Table 1. Characteristics of all studies included in the review.

First author Year Country Type of surgery Sample size (n) Design NOS Score
with neurological complications Without neurological complications
Lang Q [10] 2021 China AAAD 12 39 Retrospective 6
Zhang K [8] 2021 China AAAD 15 73 cohort study 7
Wan Z [6] 2021 China AAAD 15 25 cohort study 7
Lv X [11] 2021 China AAAD 31 190 Retrospective 8
Peng X [5] 2020 China AAAD 21 76 cohort study 6
Kimura F [7] 2020 Japan AAAD Thoracic aortic aneurysm 12 48 Retrospective 7
Fang M [12] 2015 China AAAD 169 166 Retrospective 7
Zhang Z [13] 2012 China CPB 22 10 Retrospective 7
Dalyanoglu H [14] 2012 Germany AAAD 14 33 Retrospective 7
Zou Y [15] 2011 China Thoracic abdominal aortic dissection 4 26 cohort study 8
Chen B [4] 2009 China CPB 30 32 cohort study 7
Liu X [16] 2007 China CPB 15 48 cohort study 6

Table 2. Cut-off value, sensitivity, specificity, AUC and other observation indexes for NSE, S100B, NFL, IL-6, DD and coagulation factor activity R.

Biomarker First author Neurological complications Time of blood draw Outcomes
Type evaluation standard Evaluation time
NSE Wan, Z [6] POCD MMSE Before surgery, the day after extubation, and the 7th day after surgery T0、T2、T4、T7 The sensitivity was 92%, the specificity was 67%, and the AUC was 0.77 (95%CI: 0.60~0.94)
Peng X [5] POCD MMSE Before and 7 days after surgery T0、T1、T2、T6、T9 NS
Kimura,F [7] PND TND CT MRI Before and 24 hours after surgery T0、T9 The PND cutoff was 43.56 ng/mL (sensitivity was 100%; specificity was 96.3%), OR is 0.61
Dalyanoglu,H [14] PND TND CT NS NS NS
Zou Y [15] Spinal cord injury NIHSS ISCOS Before surgery, 72 hours after surgery and at discharge, follow-up time was 3 months T1、T2、T3、T5、T7、T8、T9、T10 The sensitivity was 100%, the specificity was 96.2%, and the cutoff value was 16.84 μg/L
S100B Wan, Z [6] POCD MMSE Before surgery, the day after extubation, and the 7th day after surgery T0、T2、T4、T7 The sensitivity was 48%, the specificity was 87%, and the AUC was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.55–0.87)
Peng X [5] POCD MMSE Before and 7 days after surgery T0、T1、T2、T6、T9 The OR of S-100B> 300 ng/L at 24 h after surgery was 10. 827
Zou Y [15] Spinal cord injury NIHSS ISCOS Before surgery, 72 hours after surgery and at discharge, follow-up time was 3 months T1、T2、T3、T5、T7、T8、T9、T10 The sensitivity was 100%, the specificity was 96.2%, and the cutoff was 1.4 μg/L
Zhang Z [13] Brain Injury NIHSS Before and 2 days after surgery T0、T3、T4、T7、T9 It is more meaningful to evaluate the prognosis 6 hours after the end of CPB
Chen B [4] POCD Newman 1 day before surgery and 9 days after surgery NS NS
Liu X [16] POCD Software testing scale 1 day, 2 days, 7 days after surgery T0、 T3、T4、T8、T9 NS
NFL Zhang, K et al. [8] PND CT postoperative T0、T1、T3、T7、T8、T9、T10、T11 The AUC of NFL at 12 h after surgery was 0.834 (95%CI, 0.723–0.951, P<0.001), the sensitivity was 86.7%, the specificity was 71.6%
IL-6 Lv, X [11] Delirium RASS For the first three days after surgery, assess twice a day in the intensive care unit (ICU) or general ward T0、T9、T10、T11 The 24h postoperative cut-off value was 266.80 pg/ml, and the sensitivity was 71.0% with a specificity of 69.8%
DD Lang Q [10] PND TND CT Day 1 to Day 11 after surgery T0 OR = 0.934 (95% CI: 0.846 ~ 1.031)
Fang M [12] Delirium RASS CAM-ICU postoperative T0 OR = 2.48 (95% CI: 1.347 ~ 4.564)
coagulation factor activity R Lang Q [10] PND TND CT Day 1 to Day 11 after surgery T0 OR = 2.013 (95%CI: 1.008~4.021)

MMSE, mini-mental status examination; POCD, postoperative cognitive dysfunction; NIHSS, national institutes of health stroke scale; ISCOS, international neurological classification of spinal cord injury; CPB, cardiopulmonary bypass; OR, odds ratio; AUC, area under the curve; NS, not stated; T0, before the operation;T1, when circulation is stopped;T2, when rewarming to 36°C;T3, within 1 hour after the operation;T4, 1 hour after the operation;T5,2 hours after the operation;T6,4 hours after the operation; T7,6 hours after the operation;T8,12 hours after the operation;T9, 24 hours after the operation;T10,48 hours after the operation; T11,72 hours after the operation; NOS, newcastle-ottawa scale

NSE

Five studies reported that NSE levels at 24 hours after surgery were associated with the increased risk of postoperative neurological complications (WMD = 7.14, 95% CI: 2.19 ~ 12.09, P = 0.005, I2 = 98%) (Fig 2A). There was a marked heterogeneity in the data. We conducted a sensitivity analysis by excluding each study in turn for heterogeneity. We found that the marked heterogeneity came from the studies of Kimura, F and Zou Yi xi which were not exact AAAD (Table 1). In our subgroup analyses according to the different types of surgery, an increased risk of postoperative neurological complications should be noted compared with controls (WMD = 0.75, 95%CI: 0.24~1.25, P = 0.004<0.005, I2 = 0%) (Fig 2B) and analytic heterogeneity were very low. Additionally, the funnel plot seemed to be asymmetrical and we corrected it with the shear compensation method (S1A and S1C Fig). After correction with two virtual studies and iterated for three times, the results showed no much difference from that before clipping (WMD = 0.640, 95% CI: 0.205 ~ 1.075, P = 0.004 < 0.005) (S1B Fig). It can be considered that the existing meta-analysis results are relatively stable.

Fig 2.

Fig 2

(A) Forest plot of NSE predicting neurological complications at 24 hours after operation. (B) Forest plot of the pooled result after corrected by the different types of surgery according to the sensitivity analysis.

S100B

Five studies reported that S100B levels at 6 hours after surgery were associated with the increased risk of postoperative neurological complications (WMD = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.27 ~ 1.02, P = 0.0007< 0.001, I2 = 97%) (Fig 3A). There was a statistical heterogeneity among the studies. We also conducted a sensitivity analysis by excluding each study in turn for heterogeneity. There were no significant changes (S2A Fig). Additionally, the funnel plot seemed to be asymmetrical and we corrected it with the shear compensation method (S2B and S2D Fig). After correction by iterating twice, the results remain unchanged (S2C Fig) which indicated that the results were stable.

Fig 3.

Fig 3

(A) Forest plot of S100B predicting neurological complications at 6 hours after operation. (B) Forest plot of S100B predicting neurological complications at 24 hours after operation. (C) Forest plot of the pooled result after corrected by the sensitivity analysis.

Six studies reported that S100B levels at 24 hours after surgery were associated with the increased risk of postoperative neurological complications (WMD = 0.26, 95% CI: 0.12 ~ 0.39, P = 0.0002 < 0.001, I2 = 94%) (Fig 3B). There was a marked heterogeneity in the data. We conducted a sensitivity analysis by excluding each study in turn for heterogeneity. We found that the marked heterogeneity came from the studies of WAN, Z, Peng Xiao le and Zou Yi xi which deviated greatly (S3A Fig). When the above studies were removed, the heterogeneity was significantly reduced (WMD = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.27 ~ 0.39, P < 0.0001, I2 = 46%) (Fig 3C). Additionally, the funnel plot was asymmetric and we corrected it with the shear compensation method (S3B and S3D Fig). After correction with two virtual studies and iterated four times, no difference was observed from that before clipping, indicating a stable result (WMD = 0.281, 95% CI: 0.231 ~ 0.331, P < 0.001) (S3C Fig).

Five studies reported that the level of S100B at 6h increased more significantly than that at 24h after surgery (WMD = 0.36, 95% CI: 0.07 ~ 0.65, P = 0.01 < 0.05, I2 = 93%) (Fig 4A), There was a marked heterogeneity in the data. We conducted a sensitivity analysis by excluding each study in turn for heterogeneity. We found that the marked heterogeneity came from the studies of WAN, Z and Chen Bin which deviated greatly (S4A Fig). When the above studies were removed, the heterogeneity was significantly reduced (WMD = 0.29, 95% CI: 0.17 ~ 0.40, P < 0.00001, I2 = 0%) (Fig 4B). Additionally, the funnel plot was asymmetric and we corrected it with the shear compensation method (S4B and S4D Fig). After correction with two virtual studies and iterated three times, the results could be considered to be stable (WMD = 0.260, 95% CI: 0.166 ~ 0.354, P < 0.001) (S4C Fig). Lastly, the consequence of these studies summarized in Table 3.

Fig 4.

Fig 4

(A) Forest plot of S100B predicting neurological complications at 6 and 24 hours after operation. (B) Forest plot of the pooled result after corrected by the sensitivity analysis.

Table 3. Summary of meta-analysis results.

Biomarker Time WMD(μg/L)(95%CI), p-value I2 Subgroup based on Sensitivity analysis I2 Analysis results after correction by trim and filling method
NSE 24 hours after operation 7.14(2.19–12.09)<0.01 98% 0.75 (0.24–1.25) <0.005 0% 0.640(0.250–1.075)< 0.005
S100B 6 hours after operation 0.64(0.27–1.02)<0.001 97% __ __ __
24 hours after operation 0.26(0.12–0.39)<0.001 94% 0.33(0.27–0.39)<0.00001 46% 0.281(0.231–0.331)< 0.001
6 and 24 hours after operation 0.36(0.07–0.65) <0.05 93% 0.29(0.17–0.40)<0.00001 0% 0.260(0.166–0.354)< 0.001

WMD, weighted mean difference;—, No significant change.

Discussion

The incidence of neurologic injury is higher in AAAD than other procedures owing to the involvement of hemodynamic factors in the form of embolisms caused by surgical manipulation of cervical branches and reduction in systemic blood pressure due to CPB [7]. Therefore, early therapeutic intervention is essential to minimize the sequelae of these dangerous complications. This meta-analysis summarizes a total of 8 studies fit the inclusion criteria and confirmed that there was a statistically significant association between the biomarkers concentration and the risk of postoperative neurological complications. Both serum NSE and S100B were significantly increased in the patients with neurological complications compared with the control cohorts. The occurrence of postoperative neurological complications is caused by the synergy of multiple factors and mechanisms, including endogenous factors related to patients and the disease itself, such as poor perfusion and involvement of vessels on the aorta, and also exogenous injuries from surgical strategy [17]. S100B is usually not detected in serum, increases only under stroke, subarachnoid hemorrhage, and cardiopulmonary bypass, and is thermostable. The serum concentration of S100B is not affected by heparin, protamine, propofol, and hemolysis, so the sample can be taken at any time during the operation, and the high concentration exists in glial cells and Schwann cells. Like S100B, NSE contents are very low under normal conditions. When the central nervous system is injured, a large number of NSE is released from the cells and then enters the blood circulation [5]. Therefore, S100B and NSE are biochemical indicators to predict neurological function after AAAD.

Meanwhile, most studies predicting neural function state are based on the S100B concentration before and after cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), but the change in the CPB time and the CPB-induced neural function remains unclear. Zhang et al. [13] showed that S100B in patients was at the normal level before operation and increased rapidly after CPB, especially in the patients with moderate and severe brain injury. S100B in the asymptomatic group and mild brain injury group reached the peak at 1h after CPB and decreased at 6h after CPB, while plasma S100B in moderate and severe brain injury group continued to rise and reached the peak at 6h after CPB, and then S100B concentration gradually decreased, but still higher than the normal upper limit at 24h after CPB. The results suggest that the level and duration of S100B are positively correlated with the severity of brain injury. In the current meta-analysis, we found that the level of S100B increased more significantly at 6h than at 24h after operation, which is consistent with the results from Zhang’s study. Therefore, dynamic observation of patient S100B levels can not only determine the existence of brain injury and evaluate the injury degree after the operation, but also provide more suitable blood collection time for follow-up researchers.

In addition, this study also conducted a systematic review of other markers related to AAAD with postoperative neurological complications comprehensively and rigorously extracted the data about the time of blood draw, neurological complications evaluation standard and time, type and outcome to accentuate the necessity of further research to establish standardized values for these biomarkers in predicting neurological complications. A total of 12 studies fit the inclusion and some studies indicated that blood exposure to the external environment during CPB would activate the body’s immune system, leading to perioperative systemic inflammatory response and the release of various pro-inflammatory cytokines, such as tumor necrosis factor α, interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-6, and IL-8, etc. The inflammatory factors further activate indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase, the rate-limiting enzyme of the kynurenine pathway (KP), resulting in over-activation of central and peripheral KP, neurotoxicity, cognitive function, and even neurological complications [5]. LV et al. [11] found that plasma IL-6 is a potential biomarker for predicting postoperative delirium in patients with AAAD, with a preoperative cut-off value of 95.45pg/ml, sensitivity of 61.3%, specificity of 79.4%, and AUC value of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.632 ~ 0.833), while the 24-hour post-operation cut-off value was 266.80pg/ml, sensitivity was 71.0% and specificity was 69.8% (Table 2). Besides, cerebral small vessel disease (CSVD) is one of the main causes of stroke, and neurofilament light chain protein (NFL) is the main component of neurofilament core, which is related to the occurrence of subcortical small infarcts and new CSVD. (NFL has the highest predictive value for neural function in patients with AAAD at 12h and 24h after operation, with AUC values of 0.834 (95% CI: 0.723 ~ 0.951, P < 0.001) and 0.748 (95% CI: 0.603 ~ 0.894, P = 0.004), respectively (Table 2).

Studies revealed that the incidence of cerebral nervous system complications increases, when the coagulation function is abnormal (hypercoagulable state) [18]. DD is a specific degradation product of cross-linked fibrin, representing the activation of the coagulation and fibrinolysis system. DD is directly related to disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC). Lang et al. [10] took postoperative PND and TND of AAAD patients as the endpoints of a neurological complication study and found that the OR value of DD predicting neurological function before the operation was 0.934 (95% CI 0.846 ~ 1.031), while Fang et al. [12] took postoperative delirium as the endpoint of neurological complication study and concluded that the OR value of DD predicting neurological function before the operation was 2.48 (95% CI 1.347 ~ 4.564). In addition, the R value of coagulation factor activity indicates the time from putting into the blood sample to the formation of the first fibrin, which is also related to the patient’s hypercoagulable state (the shortening of the R value indicates the increase of coagulation factor activity and the hypercoagulable state of the blood). Lang et al. [10] also showed in the same study that the OR value of coagulation factor activity R before the operation for predicting neurological function was 2.013 (95% CI 1.008 ~ 4.021).

Several limitations of this meta-analysis should be noted:(1) only 12 Chinese and English studies were included in the study, of which 10 studies were from China and the time duration was a little long, which may cause publication bias; (2) the types of operation and the definitions of neurological complications were not unified, these may partially result from the source of heterogeneity; (3) given that all included studies were observational, the possibility of residual confounding by unmeasured factors cannot be eliminated. This provided associative, not causal, evidence and mandates caution when interpreting these results.

Conclusions

In summary, this meta-analysis mainly evaluated the role of NSE and S100B in predicting postoperative neurological complications in patients with AAAD. From the analysis, it was concluded that NSE and S100B were the ideal markers for diagnosing and S100B has a better predictive effect at 6 hours after the operation than 24 hours. In addition, NFL, IL-6, DD and coagulation factor R are expected to be biomarkers for postoperative neurological complications in patients with AAAD.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. PRISMA checklist.

(DOCX)

S1 Table. Detailed risk assessment of publication bias.

(DOCX)

S1 Fig. Correction of NSE predicting neurological complications at 24 hours after operation.

(A) Funnel plot after subgroup analysis. (B) Analysis results after correction by shear compensation method. (C) Funnel plot corrected by trim and filling method.

(TIF)

S2 Fig. S100B predicting neurological complications at 6 hours after operation.

(A) Sensitivity analysis plot. (B) Funnel plot. (C) Analysis results after correction by trim and filling method. (D) Funnel plot corrected by trim and filling method.

(TIF)

S3 Fig. Correction of S100B predicting neurological complications at 24 hours after operation.

(A) Sensitivity analysis plot before correction. (B) Funnel plot after sensitivity analysis. (C) Analysis results after correction by trim and filling method.(D) Funnel plot corrected by trim and filling method.

(TIF)

S4 Fig. Correction of S100B predicting neurological complications at 6 and 24 hours after operation.

(A) Sensitivity analysis plot before correction. (B) Funnel plot after sensitivity analysis. (C) Analysis results after correction by trim and filling method. (D) Funnel plot corrected by trim and filling method.

(TIF)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work

References

  • 1.Giambuzzi I, Mastroiacovo G, Roberto M, Pirola S, Alamanni F, Cavallotti L, et al. Preoperative neurological dysfunctions: what is their meaning in patients presenting with acute type A aortic dissection? Minerva Cardioangiol. 2020;68(5):511–7. Epub 2020/06/12. doi: 10.23736/S0026-4725.20.05230-5 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Hagan PG, Nienaber CA, Isselbacher EM, Bruckman D, Karavite DJ, Russman PL, et al. The International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection (IRAD): new insights into an old disease. Jama. 2000;283(7):897–903. Epub 2000/02/24. doi: 10.1001/jama.283.7.897 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Sun L, Qi R, Zhu J, Liu Y, Zheng J. Total Arch Replacement Combined With Stented Elephant Trunk Implantation. Circulation. 2011;123(9):971–8. doi: 10.1161/circulationaha.110.015081 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Chen Bin, Li Yuntao, Zuo Youbo, Wu Shuang. The Significance of S 1 00 Protein in the Evaluation of Postoperative Cognitive Dysfunction after Cardiopuimonary Bypass. Chinese Journal of Extracorporeal Circulation 2009; 7 (01): 20–22+11. doi: 10.13498/j.cnki.chin.j.ecc.2009.01.020 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Peng Xiaole, Liu Yuyong, Wang Xiaolong, Li Haiyang, Gong Ming, Guan Xinliang, et al. Analysis of risk factors of cognitive dysfunction after Stanford A aortic dissection and its relationship with neuron- specific enolase and S- 100 protein. China Medicine 2020; 15 (8). doi: 10.3760/jissn.1673-4777.2020.08.016 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Wan Z, Li Y, Ye H, Zi Y, Zhang G, Wang X. Plasma S100β and neuron-specific enolase, but not neuroglobin, are associated with early cognitive dysfunction after total arch replacement surgery: A pilot study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2021;100(15):e25446. Epub 2021/04/14. doi: 10.1097/md.0000000000025446 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8051968. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Kimura F, Kadohama T, Kitahara H, Ise H, Nakanishi S, Akasaka N, et al. Serum Neuron-Specific Enolase Level as Predictor of Neurologic Outcome after Aortic Surgery. Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeon. 2020;68(4):282–90. doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1677511 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Zhang K, Wang Z, Zhu K, Dong S, Pan X, Sun L, et al. Neurofilament Light Chain Protein Is a Predictive Biomarker for Stroke After Surgical Repair for Acute Type A Aortic Dissection. Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine. 2021;8. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2021.754801 WOS:000733732600001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. European journal of epidemiology. 2010;25(9):603–5. Epub 2010/07/24. doi: 10.1007/s10654-010-9491-z . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Lang Qun LI Yijiang, Peng Hao, Jian Kaitao. The reduction of coagulation factor activity R before surgery increases the risk of postoperative neurological complications in patients with acute type A aortic dissection. Chinese Journal of Clinical Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 2021; 28 (7). doi: 10.7507/1007-4848.202006024 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Lv XC, Lin Y, Wu QS, Wang L, Hou YT, Dong Y, et al. Plasma interleukin-6 is a potential predictive biomarker for postoperative delirium among acute type a aortic dissection patients treated with open surgical repair. Journal of cardiothoracic surgery. 2021;16(1):146. doi: 10.1186/s13019-021-01529-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.FANG Miao-Xuan XIONG Wei-ping, ZENG Rong, Chang-jiang YU, LI Xin, FAN Rui-Xin, et al. Research on the Risk Factors for Delirium of Stanford Type A Aortic Dissection Patients after Surgery. Chin J Clin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2015. p. 165–173. doi: 20160082 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.ZHANG Zhe, ZHANG Yu-peng, ZHOU Jin, ZHANG Tie Zheng, et al. Changes in plasma s-loop protein concentration in patients undergoing cardiac surgery performed with cardiopulmonary bypass. Chinese Journal of Anesthesiology 2012; (01): 31–33. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Dalyanoglu H, Thöne M, Kurt M, Blehm A, Albert A, Akhyari P, et al. Neuron specific enolase levels in patients undergoing aortic surgery under hypothermic circulatory arrest. Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeon. 2012;60. doi: 10.1055/s-0031-1297860 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.ZOU Yixi HU ANG Fangjiong, Wu Haiyan, et al. Clinical study on the biomarkers of central nervous system damage during the operation of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm. Journal of Chinese Practical Diagnosis and Therapy 2010; 24 (4).1674–3474 (2010) 04-0357-05. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.LIU Xiaoming, GONG Qingcheng, WANG Xianggang, LIU Feng, LI Weiran, MIAO Na, et al. The Effects of Extracorporeal Circulation on the Release of Serum S l 00B Protein and the Neurocognitive Functions. Chinese Journal of Extracorporeal Circulation 2007; (02): 75–79. doi: 10.13498/j cnki.chin.j.ecc.2007.02.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Jiang L, Chen S, Jian Z, Xiao YB. Risk Factors for Permanent Neurological Dysfunction and Early Mortality in Patients with Type A Aortic Dissection Requiring Total Arch Replacement. Heart Surg Forum. 2018;21(3):E221–E8. doi: 10.1532/hsf.1983 WOS:000457927700018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Huanqing Fan, Jintao Zhang, et al.Research Progress on risk factors of cerebral infarction in young people. Practical Journal of Medicine & Pharmacy 2010; 27 (03): 266–268. doi: 10.14172/j.cnki.issn1671-4008.2010.03.044 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Alessandro Leone

27 Jun 2022

PONE-D-22-13178Biomarkers for prediction of neurological complications after acute Stanford type A aortic dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Li,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 11 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alessandro Leone, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I have read with great interest regarding the biochemical prognostic markers of type 1 aortic dissection, which may help with management of this highly morbid condition. Below are my suggestions:

1) In the abstract, ". In addition, NFL, IL-6, DD and coagulation factor R are expected to be biomarkers for postoperative neurological complications in patients with AAAD." - the main text only mentions NSE and S100B as significant prognostic markers. I would revise or remove this phrase to avoid any confusions.

2) In the Introduction the authors mention: "The mortality of patients without surgical treatment is 90% in the first 24 hours and 50% in 48 hours". The cited article mentions overall mortality in medically managed AAAD to be around 50%, and it would be paradoxical to have 24hr mortality to be higher than 50%.

3) I would recommend expanding on the biologic role of NSE and S100B and its clinical significance on the Introduction rather than the Discussion.

4) Aside from above, the manuscript suffers from many small grammatical errors which sometimes hinder with legibility. I would recommend repeat proofreading to address these prior to publication.

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors, thank you for submitting your paper about this important topic.

I have the following questions:

- the majority of studies included in the paper come from China; to broaden the spectrum of disease, treatment and molecular assay, please include also the valuable contribution from other countries.

- In the plots experimental and control group are difficult for the reader to understand which group is; please change the labels accordingly

- some outputs are directly computer generated and are not easy to understand; please summarise the findings in one table.

Reviewer #3: Dear the authors of the manuscript entitled "Biomarkers for prediction of neurological complications after acute Stanford type A aortic dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis"

Thank you for writing this systemic review and meta-analysis which highlighted an important subject in the field of aortic surgery

As youy explained, neurological complications are serious issues after aortic replacements and carry poor prognosis once happened

I can understand the limitations that were mentioned, but i do recommend the following points to be considered:

1. Please run an intense English language spell check through the whole manuscript

2. Please check the accuracy of the following written sentences in the introduction section:

A."The mortality of patients without surgical treatment is 90% in the first 24 hours and 50% in 48 hours". I guess the percentages need to reversed

B."Total aortic arch replacement is the first choice for saving patients' lives". I think the minority of the patients need total aortic arch replacements for Type AAAD

Thank you

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Salah Eldien Altarabsheh

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Feb 8;18(2):e0281352. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281352.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


17 Sep 2022

Dear Editor and Reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewer’s comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Biomarkers for prediction of neurological complications after acute Stanford type A aortic dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis”. Those comments are especially valuable and helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as following.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1: I have read with great interest regarding the biochemical prognostic markers of type 1 aortic dissection, which may help with management of this highly morbid condition. Below are my suggestions:

1) In the abstract, ". In addition, NFL, IL-6, DD and coagulation factor R are expected to be biomarkers for postoperative neurological complications in patients with AAAD." - the main text only mentions NSE and S100B as significant prognostic markers. I would revise or remove this phrase to avoid any confusions.

2) In the Introduction the authors mention: "The mortality of patients without surgical treatment is 90% in the first 24 hours and 50% in 48 hours". The cited article mentions overall mortality in medically managed AAAD to be around 50%, and it would be paradoxical to have 24hr mortality to be higher than 50%.

3) I would recommend expanding on the biologic role of NSE and S100B and its clinical significance on the Introduction rather than the Discussion.

4) Aside from above, the manuscript suffers from many small grammatical errors which sometimes hinder with legibility. I would recommend repeat proofreading to address these prior to publication.

Response:

Thank you for your professional, excellent and rigorous comments, they are very helpful for us and our manuscript. Your comments are sound as well as considerate. We have modified the manuscript according to your comments.

[1] Thank you for your professional and rigorous comments. We have revised the phrase of " In addition, NFL, IL-6, DD and coagulation factor R are expected to be biomarkers for postoperative neurological complications in patients with AAAD." to avoid any confusions.

[2] Thank you for your professional comments. We have revised the sentecnes in the Introduction section, and would to express: "The mortality of patients without surgical treatment is 90% in the first 24 hours and overall mortality in medically managed AAAD to be around 50%". Please check and we apologize for this mistake.

[3] Thank you for your professional comments. In addition to the problems you mentioned we have checked and revised the Introduction and Discussion.

[4] Thanks for your careful comments. We have checked and revised the whole manuscript thoroughly.

If there is any problem, please don’t hesitate to contact me, may its blessings lead into a wonderful life for you and all whom you love!

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors, thank you for submitting your paper about this important topic.

I have the following questions:

- the majority of studies included in the paper come from China; to broaden the spectrum of disease, treatment and molecular assay, please include also the valuable contribution from other countries.

- In the plots experimental and control group are difficult for the reader to understand which group is; please change the labels accordingly

- some outputs are directly computer generated and are not easy to understand; please summarise the findings in one table.

Response:

Thanks for your professional, excellent and rigorous advice, we appreciate very much for your recognition of our study, we will humbly accept suggestions and make efforts to correct them.

[1] Your comments are sound as well as considerate. We are sorry that we have not found more papers from other countries, this limitation was also mentioned at the end of the manuscript. Although related researches from other counties were limited, continuous attention to them is still going on. We hope more studies would be included in the future. Here, we apologize for this problem you mentioned.

[2] Thank you for your professional comments. We have changed the labels accordingly in Figs1-3 and S1-4Figs and added legends to make plots clearer.

[3] Thank you for your rigorous comments. We have summarized the findings in table3 accordingly, please check again.

If there is any question, please don’t hesitate to contact me, may its blessings lead into a wonderful life for you and all whom you love!

Reviewer #3: Dear the authors of the manuscript entitled "Biomarkers for prediction of neurological complications after acute Stanford type A aortic dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis"

Thank you for writing this systemic review and meta-analysis which highlighted an important subject in the field of aortic surgery

As you explained, neurological complications are serious issues after aortic replacements and carry poor prognosis once happened

I can understand the limitations that were mentioned, but i do recommend the following points to be considered:

1. Please run an intense English language spell check through the whole manuscript

2. Please check the accuracy of the following written sentences in the introduction section:

A."The mortality of patients without surgical treatment is 90% in the first 24 hours and 50% in 48 hours". I guess the percentages need to reversed

B."Total aortic arch replacement is the first choice for saving patients' lives". I think the minority of the patients need total aortic arch replacements for Type AAAD

Response:

Thanks for your professional, excellent and rigorous advice, we appreciate very much for your recognition of our study, thank you very much.

[1] Thanks so much for your positive comments. We have checked and revised the whole manuscript carefully.

[2] A Thank you for your professional comments. We have revised the sentence in the introduction now. New corrections have been marked in our manuscript named “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes”.

B Thank you for your rigorous comments. The pathogenesis, age and severity of aortic dissection in Chinese are obviously different from those in developed countries. The average age of onset in foreign patients is more than 60 years old, and most of them are aneurysmal dilatation caused by atherosclerotic lesions. Medical system in developed countries are relatively sound. Early detection, standardized systematic treatment and long-term follow-up observation of patients tend to leave fewer residual lesions, and the therapeutic effect is ideal. But in China, this age is about 46 years old, most of them are complicated with hypertension, and often cannot be treated in time, the disease is extensive and serious, and some patients need two or more operations. Therefore, total aortic arch replacement is the first choice for saving patients' lives in China and the details of the operation described in “Total Arch Replacement Combined With Stented Elephant Trunk Implantation”.

If there is any question, please don’t hesitate to contact me, may its blessings lead into a wonderful life for you and all whom you love!

Kindly regards

drjunjieli@126.com

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers .docx

Decision Letter 1

Eyüp Serhat Çalık

23 Jan 2023

Biomarkers for prediction of neurological complications after acute Stanford type A aortic dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PONE-D-22-13178R1

Dear Dr. Li,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Eyüp Serhat Çalık

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #3: Dear the authors

Thank you for taking in consideration the reviewers comments

I have no concerns about the manuscript

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #3: Yes: salah Eldien Altarabsheh

**********

Acceptance letter

Eyüp Serhat Çalık

26 Jan 2023

PONE-D-22-13178R1

Biomarkers for prediction of neurological complications after acute Stanford type A aortic dissection:a systematic review and meta-analysis

Dear Dr. Li:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Eyüp Serhat Çalık

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Checklist. PRISMA checklist.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Table. Detailed risk assessment of publication bias.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Fig. Correction of NSE predicting neurological complications at 24 hours after operation.

    (A) Funnel plot after subgroup analysis. (B) Analysis results after correction by shear compensation method. (C) Funnel plot corrected by trim and filling method.

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. S100B predicting neurological complications at 6 hours after operation.

    (A) Sensitivity analysis plot. (B) Funnel plot. (C) Analysis results after correction by trim and filling method. (D) Funnel plot corrected by trim and filling method.

    (TIF)

    S3 Fig. Correction of S100B predicting neurological complications at 24 hours after operation.

    (A) Sensitivity analysis plot before correction. (B) Funnel plot after sensitivity analysis. (C) Analysis results after correction by trim and filling method.(D) Funnel plot corrected by trim and filling method.

    (TIF)

    S4 Fig. Correction of S100B predicting neurological complications at 6 and 24 hours after operation.

    (A) Sensitivity analysis plot before correction. (B) Funnel plot after sensitivity analysis. (C) Analysis results after correction by trim and filling method. (D) Funnel plot corrected by trim and filling method.

    (TIF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers .docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES