In my last post, I explained why I am at the moment not writing one post per new paper. Instead, I group them. This time with a common denominator, namely the role of cardiac troponin and stroke:
High-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin T and Cognitive Function in Patients With Ischemic Stroke. This paper finds its origins in the PROSCIS study, in which we studied other biomarkers as well. In fact, there is a whole lot more coming. The analyses of these longitudinal data showed a – let’s say ‘medium-sized’ – relationship between cardiac troponin and cognitive function. A whole lot of caveats – a presumptive learning curve, not a big drop in cognitive function to work with anyway. After all, these are only mild to moderately affected stroke patients.
Association Between High-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin and Risk of Stroke in 96 702 Individuals: A Meta-Analysis. This paper investigates several patient populations -the general population, increased risk population, and stroke patients. The number of patients individuals in the title might, therefore, be a little bit deceiving – I think you should really only look at the results with those separate groups in mind. Not only do I think that the biology might be different, the methodological aspects (e.g. heterogeneity) and interpretation (relative risks with high absolute risks) are also different.
Response by Siegerink et al to Letter Regarding Article, “Association Between High-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin and Risk of Stroke in 96 702 Individuals: A Meta-Analysis”. We did the meta-analysis as much as possible “but the book”. We pre-registered our plan and published accordingly. This all to discourage ourselves (and our peer reviewers) to go and “hunt for specific results”. But then there was a letter to the editor with the following central point: Because in the subgroup of patients with material fibrillation, the cut-offs used for the cardiac troponin are so different that pooling these studies together in one analysis does not make sense. At first glance, it looks like the authors have a point: it is difficult to actually get a very strict interpretation from the results that we got. This paper described our response. Hint: upon closer inspection, we do not agree and make a good counterargument (at least, that’s what we think).