World journal of clinical pediatrics · 2026
Comparison of bilirubin albumin ratio and total serum bilirubin for predicting neurological dysfunction in newborns: A meta-analysis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ahmad Nabeel, Ahmed Uzair, Mohy Ud Din Ghulam, Habib Mavia, Luqman Muhammad Shaheer, Talha Muhammad, Saifullah Muneeb, Rana Ikra
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Bilirubin-induced neurologic dysfunction (BIND) remains a serious complication of severe neonatal hyperbilirubinemia, especially in resource-limited settings. While total serum bilirubin (TSB) is widely used for risk stratification, the bilirubin/albumin (B/A) ratio has been proposed as a surrogate for free bilirubin, the neurotoxic fraction.
AIM: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of the B/A ratio vs TSB for predicting acute BIND in neonates.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies evaluating the B/A ratio and TSB for predicting BIND in neonates (≥ 35 weeks' gestational age). Data sources included PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, and Google Scholar. Pooled standardized mean difference (SMD), sensitivity, specificity, and heterogeneity (I 2) were calculated using a bivariate random-effects model. Meta-regression was used to assess whether biomarker type (B/A vs TSB) explained performance differences. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool.
RESULTS: Five studies involving a total of 1022 neonates were included, with a male-to-female ratio of approximately 57:40. The SMD for B/A ratio was 1.71 (95%CI: 1.00-2.41, P < 0.0001), and for TSB it was 1.68, both showing strong associations with BIND. Meta-regression revealed no significant difference in predictive value between the two biomarkers (P = 0.96).
CONCLUSION: Both TSB and the B/A ratio are comparably effective in predicting BIND. While the B/A ratio may provide incremental value in specific clinical contexts, current evidence supports continued reliance on TSB for routine risk stratification.
AIM: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of the B/A ratio vs TSB for predicting acute BIND in neonates.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies evaluating the B/A ratio and TSB for predicting BIND in neonates (≥ 35 weeks' gestational age). Data sources included PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, and Google Scholar. Pooled standardized mean difference (SMD), sensitivity, specificity, and heterogeneity (I 2) were calculated using a bivariate random-effects model. Meta-regression was used to assess whether biomarker type (B/A vs TSB) explained performance differences. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool.
RESULTS: Five studies involving a total of 1022 neonates were included, with a male-to-female ratio of approximately 57:40. The SMD for B/A ratio was 1.71 (95%CI: 1.00-2.41, P < 0.0001), and for TSB it was 1.68, both showing strong associations with BIND. Meta-regression revealed no significant difference in predictive value between the two biomarkers (P = 0.96).
CONCLUSION: Both TSB and the B/A ratio are comparably effective in predicting BIND. While the B/A ratio may provide incremental value in specific clinical contexts, current evidence supports continued reliance on TSB for routine risk stratification.