Depression and anxiety · 2026
Blunted Niacin Skin Flushing Response in Mood Disorders: A Meta-Analysis of Case-Control Studies.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание 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.
Wang Qian, Wang Jinfeng, Hu Xiaowen, Gao Yan, Li Shuhui, Wang Tianqi, Wang Dandan, Wan Chunling
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Mood disorders (MDs), including depressive disorder (DD) and bipolar disorder (BD), represent a major global health burden, yet the absence of objective biomarkers has persistently hindered their accurate clinical diagnosis. The niacin skin flushing response (NSFR) has shown promise as a potential biomarker; however, inconsistencies in diagnostic efficacy and response characteristics across studies have limited its utility. This meta-analysis aims to systematically evaluate the NSFR in MD patients to address these discrepancies.
METHODS: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases was conducted for articles published through May 2025, identifying 18 eligible case-control studies involving 1848 participants (888 MD patients and 960 HC). Random-effects models were used to assess the degree, speed, and sensitivity of NSFR, while subgroup analyses and meta-regression explored potential sources of heterogeneity.
RESULTS: MD patients exhibited markedly blunted NSFR, characterized by reduced degree and speed of response (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [-1.12; -0.05] and SMD = 0.72, 95% CI: [0.35; 1.10]), while no statistically significant difference in NSFR sensitivity was observed (SMD = 0.51, 95% CI: [-0.18; 1.20]). Subgroup analyses identified substantial heterogeneity across detection methods, geographical regions, and control sources, highlighting the need for standardized protocols. Meta-regression analyses indicated that sample size, publication year, gender distribution, and age did not significantly affect outcomes, further strengthening the robustness of our findings.
CONCLUSION: This study reinforces the potential of NSFR as a biomarker for MD and highlights the critical need to address heterogeneity through standardized methodologies in future research to enhance its diagnostic reliability.
METHODS: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases was conducted for articles published through May 2025, identifying 18 eligible case-control studies involving 1848 participants (888 MD patients and 960 HC). Random-effects models were used to assess the degree, speed, and sensitivity of NSFR, while subgroup analyses and meta-regression explored potential sources of heterogeneity.
RESULTS: MD patients exhibited markedly blunted NSFR, characterized by reduced degree and speed of response (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [-1.12; -0.05] and SMD = 0.72, 95% CI: [0.35; 1.10]), while no statistically significant difference in NSFR sensitivity was observed (SMD = 0.51, 95% CI: [-0.18; 1.20]). Subgroup analyses identified substantial heterogeneity across detection methods, geographical regions, and control sources, highlighting the need for standardized protocols. Meta-regression analyses indicated that sample size, publication year, gender distribution, and age did not significantly affect outcomes, further strengthening the robustness of our findings.
CONCLUSION: This study reinforces the potential of NSFR as a biomarker for MD and highlights the critical need to address heterogeneity through standardized methodologies in future research to enhance its diagnostic reliability.